Book Review - John Caputo, "Hoping Against Hope"

Amazon Link

Amazon Book Description

John D. Caputo has a long career as one of the preeminent postmodern philosophers in America. The author of such books as Radical Hermeneutics, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, and The Weakness of God, Caputo now reflects on his spiritual journey from a Catholic altar boy in 1950s Philadelphia to a philosopher after the death of God. Part spiritual autobiography, part homily on what he calls the "nihilism of grace," Hoping Against Hope calls believers and nonbelievers alike to participate in the "praxis of the kingdom of God," which Caputo says we must pursue "without why."

Caputo's conversation partners in this volume include Lyotard, Derrida, and Hegel, but also earlier versions of himself: Jackie, a young altar boy, and Brother Paul, a novice in a religious order. Caputo traces his own journey from faith through skepticism to hope, after the "death of God." In the end, Caputo doesn't want to do away with religion; he wants to redeem religion and to reinvent religion for a postmodern time.

Amazon Book Reviews

Most helpful positive review

By Phil on October 21, 2015

In a market saturated by religious books that try to avoid the difficult and complex questions of life and faith, John D. Caputo's book is a breath of fresh air. He writes from the heart, and dares to ask questions about God and faith that so many of us have yet aren't sure we are allowed to ask. He's honest about the fact that we frequently live our lives somewhere between belief and doubt. This book takes religion in a new direction altogether. Caputo doesn't seem to think it possible or wise to give superficial answers to complex questions, and he goes against the grain by not trying to settle the debate once and for all regarding the existence of God. What he does, however, is write with a passionate sense of hoping, sighing, dreaming and longing that in so many ways marks the human condition, whether we believe in God or not. In that sense, believers, skeptics, inquirers, agnostics and even atheists will find great resonance in this book. I can't recommend it enough.

Most helpful critical review

By Amazon Customer on November 1, 2015

Hoping Against Hope is a book that I really enjoyed reading despite disagreeing with the author's conclusions. Caputo is a wonderful writer and has a deep understanding of the history of philosophy which he uses to masterfully craft short vignettes as he interacts with himself and the great western philosophers. It is this interaction with his younger self and philosophers which I particularly enjoyed. In fact, at times I found myself not wanting to allow myself to think about where he was going but couldn't help but read on due to the pure delight I experienced in his interaction with philosophy. It was not unlike watching a horror movie in which you have become deeply involved with the plot and yet experience a sense of dread as you realize exactly where it is leading.

The basic premise of Hoping Against Hope is that it doesn't matter so much if God exists... we ought to live as if he does. Not because we are duty bound to honor him as God, but simply because the themes of the kingdom (mercy, forgiveness, etc) are worthy pursuits of which no one can bring a charge against. Consider the following,

"if the unconditional does not exist, and if the name of God is the name of something unconditional, then God does not exist -- just in virtue of the unconditional purity of the gift, of forgiveness, of everything unconditional . . ." - JC

This is what Caputo refers to as the "nihilism of grace" and is a central theme in Hoping Against Hope. To live this way . . . to live a life of compassion, mercy and forgiveness is only rightfully lived (according to Caputo) without why. To live without why is to live a virtuous life divorced from the virtue's relation to God. An act of compassion is only truly compassionate if it is done simply for the sake of compassion and not under the auspice of God's favor or displeasure.

I understand what Caputo is getting at and in part agree with him. Mercy is only merciful when it is enacted for the sake of another and not when motivated by fear of God or an alternative motive of gaining favor with God. This is certainly true. But I think Caputo is too quick to dismiss that we often times do the right thing not to find favor with God, but simply because we desire to please him as a child desires to please his mother or father. In other words, our good works are acts of worship (not merit) that we do out of gratitude toward God. Furthermore, Caputo seems to dismiss (or at least neglects to address) the idea that the only possible way that sinful man can possess true virtue is by the grace of God. Our compassion, our forgiveness, and our mercy all have their origin in God. They are foreign and not naturally born properties within the heart of man.

Overall I really enjoyed Hoping against Hope. I found Caputo easy to read and sincere. However, as a theology, it fails to answer the deeper questions of why we do what we do. Simply doing them without why sounds good enough, but upon reflection, is inadequate to tame the sinful heart of man.

---

A joyful affirmation contra New Atheists and Long Robes alike

By David W. on October 31, 2015

Does God exist? Is there a heaven beyond the skies? Does religion offer an escape hatch from the temporality and finitude of human existence? To these Big Questions, John Caputo offers answers that are emphatically, if not dogmatically, in the negative. Nevertheless, Caputo's philosophically textured and deeply personal memoir, Hoping Against Hope, in which he presents a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Christian (Roman Catholic) tradition that formed him, is no amicus brief on behalf of the warrior atheists in their case against God and religion. Caputo has always been and remains convinced that the question of God is, in the words of Paul Tillich, a matter of ultimate concern. Moreover, he does not simply equate religion with superstition, but rather sees it as a "form of life", a way of being-in-the world, without which, despite its dubious history, the world would be a less hopeful place.

On the surface, Caputo's idea of God, which will not be entirely new to those familiar with his ongoing work in hermeneutical-deconstructive philosophy and so-called “radical theology”, appears to be purely and simply atheistic. He rejects out of hand any notion of God as a Supreme Being, Eternal Father, Unmoved First Mover, Ultimate Ground, or the like. Does God exist? Caputo says no, and as far as that goes, Caputo agrees with the New Atheists. Yet where Atheism (with a big A) new and old ends, Caputo’s postmodern religious project is just getting started. “God does not exist,” Caputo asserts, then, with a greater insistence, in the same breath, affirms, “God insists.” The complex and difficult notion of God’s spectral yet compelling “insistence”, as opposed to metaphysical existence, is the subject of Caputo’s longer and more densely philosophical study, The Insistence of God: A Theology of Perhaps, and is not developed in Hoping Against Hope. Instead, Caputo focuses our attention on a subtle and evocative concept drawn from the work of the French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida: the unconditional.

The unconditional signifies for Caputo an affirmation of life and the world without strings attached, a gift given, received, and enjoyed outside the economies of exchange. In theological terms, the unconditional is God emptying himself into the world and disappearing without remainder, and without expectation of thanks, much less worship. Caputo acknowledges that the theology of the unconditional will cause pious brows to furrow, a furrowing in which he clearly takes an impish delight. Yet those “long robes”, as Caputo calls the guardians of orthodoxy, are not his primary audience. Caputo writes for those of us who are willing to put our piety at risk, who still care deeply about God and “his” future, and yet might find it difficult to fully embrace the notion of a God as mortal as the world into which “he” has vanished.

C. S. Lewis would be aghast, but I’m tempted to call John D. Caputo a “joyful Christian”. To be sure, Caputo’s is a joy more Nietzschean than “properly” Christian, yet one cannot read Hoping Against Hope without becoming infected by Jack Caputo’s joy of life, a joy that is surely not unlike the joy of the one whom Caputo calls, with deep affection, Yeshua the Earthman.

---

Hoping Against Hope Review

By Amazon Customer on October 31, 2015

SUMMARY

In Hoping Against Hope, John D. Caputo shares his spiritual journey which began early on in his youth and simultaneously puts forth what he calls a “religion without religion,” or the “religion of the rose.”

He begins by explaining that based upon the scientific evidence of the continuous expansion of the sun, the world will literally end. He calls this “inhuman”, because all people will literally be no more, along with their stories and their thought. He admits that as a young boy and later, as “Brother Paul,” -- another name he’s given himself from a previous stage in his life in which he was committed to Catholicism – he would have readily pointed to religion to find comfort in this coming doom. However, he points out that much of what is going on in religion, or what he likes to call “in the name of God,” is full of ugliness and hatred that don’t seem to offer a sense of hope in the face of a looming “nihilism.”

All of this is what leads to his venture into arguing for a religionless religion, which includes his main ideas of the religion of the rose, the nihilism of grace, living without why, and the pure gift. Each of these ideas feed into the other and are tightly woven together. The religion of the rose is that it blooms simply because it blooms. Of course there are many biological factors that cause its blooming, but ultimately, the rose is not blooming for any reason. It is simply being a rose. Therefore, Caputo sees the rose an example for us, as it “lives without why,” selflessly and essentially, purposelessly. This is the perfect example of his “nihilism of grace,” which he says to think of “as depending on the power of nothingness, something that is because it is, nothing more, without why” (p. 44). The rose and the way it simply exists gives way to Caputo’s idea that ultimately, God does not exist, rather He “insists.” As he explains in great detail, if God first exists and demands our allegiance to Him, all of His gifts are no longer pure, and neither are ours, because He gave to us in order to indebt us to Himself, and we give gifts and do good works in order to secure our own heavenly rewards (which brings up another concept in the book, the economy of salvation). If a gift is known at all, then it is no longer pure, no longer grace. Therefore, God does not exist, rather He insists, and we, humans, give God existence with our good works. In fact, Caputo even says that our good works are the kingdom of God; that our “pure gifts” to the world which we do without why are the existence of God in the world themselves.

Fundamentally, this book is Caputo’s offer of a hope that is not in Jesus Christ or in any other god or super being coming to save us from the eventual destruction of this world, but that hopes that this indeed is not the case; that the Day of Judgment is not what we believe it to be, because hoping in Christ’s return to save us into eternity with Him would mean that those who do not hope in Him would be doomed for eternity. The only thing to do, then, is to live without why, bringing God to life with our pure gifts of grace, and embracing the world as it is, chaotic and perishable.

REVIEW

John D. Caputo is an extraordinary writer. His eloquence and witty humor make Hoping Against Hope a challenging yet fun and engaging read. He makes excellent points, for example, about the danger of the “economy of salvation”; that many do good works only to inherit eternal life, ultimately for selfish gain, or even out of pure obligation without love. He is clearly an intelligent man with extensive knowledge in many areas. However, Caputo lacks a few beliefs that are fundamental to Christianity, which steer most of his concepts in the wrong direction.

First, he doesn’t believe that there is one objective Truth, and therefore does not believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:16). On page 98, he writes, “I do not think that there is an underlying, universal, cross-cultural religious truth that can finally be unearthed with enough empirical digging into the different traditions. The only universal I embrace is the universality of difference.” On page 99 he goes further to say, “I imagine a meeting of Jesus and the Buddha, in which each bows before the other, each confessing what he has to learn from the other…” This is clearly in stark opposition to God’s commandments to have no other gods beside Him (Exodus 20:3) and to love Him above all else (Matthew 22:37-38).

This leads me to another core problem with Caputo’s theology: he doesn’t believe that God is who He’s revealed Himself to be throughout the Scriptures, nor who God reveals us humans to be in the Scriptures either. This is a seam that can be traced all through the book. On page 62, he speaks of the work of Mother Teresa and writes, “Her work stood, with or without God; her work stood, without why. Her work was the work of God, which is what the rabbis mean when they speak of loving the Torah more than God.” With such a statement and concept, Caputo has either forgotten or disagrees with Scripture – and therefore with God – that we are sinful and incapable of doing any truly good thing without the help of God Himself. We have no good nor any value in and of ourselves. On page 82, he explains his agreement with Meister Eckhart and writes, “Eckhart went so far as to say that God needs human beings in order to be God. This is the mystical predecessor of what I am calling the ‘insistence of God,’ where God needs us to be provided with existence…the world is the place where God gets to be God.” This statement sums up clearly enough that he believes that God needs us. Again, this is exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. God doesn’t need us at all, not only because we’re fallen, imperfect people, but also because He is perfect, and not to mention – Creator. He created us; we’re His creations. Yet He needs us?

This takes me to my final main finding in the cracks in Caputo’s concepts, and it’s a bit of a two and one: I believe it’s safe to say that Caputo neither believes in the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God, nor the final and ultimate authority concerning Truth, which makes me wonder: is he a Christian at all?

Don’t get me wrong; Caputo is, as I said, a wonderful writer, incredibly intelligent, and he makes many good points. The issue I found is that his good points veer off into a direction that I, as a devout believer and follower of Jesus Christ, would say work in opposition to what we find in Scripture. All in all, I would say that this book is an excellent read in terms of eloquence, entertainment, and even for the challenging of one’s mind and faith. However, I strongly question to what extent, if to any extent at all, he writes from a Christian perspective.

---

A confusing, unorthodox approach to God

By Joe W. on October 31, 2015

I don't think I can rightly claim to be a philosopher in any sense of the word. As such, I tend to find works of philosophy more difficult to digest, and this work is no exception. If a work is to be graded on its ability to be read and understood, I would have to give this book a "D" at best. The flipping back and forth between personalities and having two entities with the same name (one the child version of the author, the other a French philosopher) added to the confusion as I read through this book.

While I may be able to agree to some extent with the author that much done in the name of Christ is not truly done according to the will of Christ, his talk of reclaiming or reinventing religion paints a picture that does not match what I know of who Christ is. I suppose that should not be surprising because it appears that the author has reached a point to where he denies the existence of the God of the Bible (in doing a little bit of research, the author supports what is called "weak theology," one of the outpourings being the denial of God as a being who can and will intervene in the events of the universe).

The author most definitely does not fit the picture of orthodoxy, denying special creation as recorded in Genesis and seeing homosexuality as acceptable. Whether intentional or not, he also gave me the impression of declaring all religions as equally valid (again, the lack of clarity in writing did me no favors in understanding his point). His disparaging of the orthodox understanding of Christ was disturbing; instead, he references a few isolated instances in Scripture that, taken by themselves, give a distorted view of who Jesus is, camping on His love while ignoring His justice.

All in all, I cannot rightly recommend this book.

Note: I received this book through Cross Focused Reviews in exchange for my honest appraisal

---

PostHope Hope

By James R. V. Matichuk on October 31, 2015

Can Hope survive with the collapse of epistemology certainty? Is God necessarily existent for spiritual experience? Can the nihilism of our age open us up to the possibility of grace? Phenomenologist and deconstructionist John D. Caputo wrestles with these questions and more in his intellectual memoir, Hoping Against Hope (Confessions of a Postmodern Pilgrim). The book is a spiritual autobiography of sorts, but it only reveals the broad contours of Caputo's life, focusing on the development (or deconstruction?) of his thoughts on God, faith and certainty.

Caputo was raised in a devout Catholic family. He spent four years as a De LaSalle monk, before his illustrious career as a philosopher and theologians (thirty-six years as professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and professor of philosophy of religion at Syracuse University for seven years). In Hoping Against Hope he gives voice and personality to these various stages of his intellectual development. As a child Caputo was an altar boy in pre-Vatican II Catholicism who had memorized the Baltimore Catechism. Caputo refers to this younger self as "Jackie." "Brother Paul," is the monk Caputo who grew callouses on his knees in an attempt to learn prayer and had a love for the mystics. The professor, "John D.," is the the philosopher who's tongue was loosed by Jacques Derrida (the other Jackie) and the French Postmodernists.

Caputo writes:

"My life as a philosopher has taken place in the distance between theology and philosophy. Like everyone else, however far forward I thought I moved, I was always circling around my origins. I soon found that the audacity of the philosophers who "dare to think" according to the Enlightenment motto, fails them when it comes to theology. There they panic, in fear of contamination. They treat the name of God like a terrible computer virus that will corrupt all their files, or like a real one, like the Ebola virus, where the odds of recovering are against you. So, mostly at the beginning of my professional life, when "John D." stepped forth and responded to the title "professor," while telling Jackie to stay at home, I was worried that they would say, "This is not philosophy, this is just his religion." But my religion is between me and Brother Paul and Jackie and several others. How can they know anything about that? (104-105)."

With the Continental Philosophers, Heidigger, Derrida, Lacan, Lyotoard, Levinas, and others, Caputo thoroughly rejects the narrative of the Christian tradition and the official line of the Roman Catholic church. He dismantles dogma, expresses his antagonism toward the afterlife and a God that is either ' the Prime Punisher and the Royal Rewarder (64). He also regards the arguement between atheism and theism to be wrong-headed. With a Zen-Koan-like-air he proclaims, "God does not exist. God insists" (114). He gives fresh and unique interpretations of scripture and imagines the textual variants he wishes to one day uncover. Caputo's thoughts run far a field from classic Christian orthodoxy.

But his project isn't wholly negative. Caputo upholds active service to the poor and marginalized and the non-religious religion of love. He says his idea of nihilism is stolen from the mystics and he employs insights from Miester Eckhardt and Marguerite Porete (both mystics ran a foul from official church teaching). What Caputo proposes is a religion of the Rose--"The rose is without why; it blossoms because it blossoms; It cares not for itself, asks not if it's seen" (27). He brings this verse from Angelus Silesius into conversation with Lyotard's religion of the smile and posits a nihilism where all of life is received as a gift (with or without a giver), where all of life is received without condition (181).

As an intellectual memoir/spiritual autobiography I give this three stars and thought it was an interesting read. I especially loved the 'short nocturnal dialogue' where Caputo imagines a dialogue with himself at his different stages of faith and intellectual development. I appreciate how Caputo's postmodernity leads him to pluralism and relativism without the need to posit an underlying universal faith in God. However, I am unconvinced by Caputo's theological vision and see his radical (or weakness) theology as incompatible with the Christian gospel of grace. I was aware of Caputo before reading this book, so wasn't particularly surprised by what he says here. I have read him before and have seen him lecture. I find him fascinating. I also find it ironic that I received this book from Cross Focused Reviews. If Caputo mentions the cross at all (and I don't remember that he does in this book), it is clearly not his focus. Anyway, I received this book in exchange for my honest review.

---

The God of love should keep an infinite distance from the economy of salvation

By Matthew Hisrich on October 26, 2015

I cannot overstate the profound impact Jack Caputo's writing has had upon my faith and my life. His earlier "Insistence of God" helped provide me with the language to articulate in a big picture sense of a God of insistence rather than existence, and a theology centered on the possibility of the event. With Hoping Against Hope he has done this for me once again, this time particularly regarding heaven and its implications for life here on Earth. His description of the beauty and value of life not based on the economy of heaven is beautiful and moving. I highly recommend this book for fans of Caputo and others interested in wrestling with orthodox Christian understanding.

---

Touching and Personal- A great read. One of Caputo's best!

By Joseph Candito on October 21, 2015

For those readers who are familiar with Jack’s work in The Weakness of God and The Insistence of God, this is a deceptively simple book. Maybe because the Professor had to share the stage with young Jackie and Brother Paul. I found this a touching and personal read. There is a circumfession here. Even if it is subtle. I am not a philosopher and have no training as such. This book gives life to many things Jack has written in other places. If you are looking for a confirmation of eternal security, you are not going to find it in these pages. Living without why (The Theology of the Rose) can be risky business. In Professor’s own words, “The name of God is the name of a way to be, a way of living in the world, where things are a lot risker than we all thought. Life’s a beautiful risk”. To which a young Jackie adds, “And a frightening one.”

---

I enjoyed the musings, the interaction with thinkers, and the illustrations.

By James B. Pate on October 21, 2015

John D. Caputo is a philosopher, a theologian, and an author. Hope Against Hope contains some of his musings about religion. Caputo dialogues with different aspects of himself: Jackie, who was Caputo as a child; Brother Paul, who was involved in a religious order; and Caputo as an academic. Caputo also interacts with a variety of thinkers: Meister Eckhart, Marguerite Porete, Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich, Jacques Derrida, and others.

Caputo expresses a number of views that would probably be controversial among evangelicals. For example, Caputo expresses doubt about (maybe even disbelief in) eternal torment in hell, and perhaps even the afterlife, for that matter. This is surprising to me, since I received a review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, which strikes me as conservative Christian.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. It has a musing quality to it, and I appreciated that Caputo wove different thinkers into the discussion, while sharing his own faith journey. Caputo also has a sense of humor, and I laughed out loud at some of his wry reflections.

I did not find some of his main points to be particularly new. For example, Caputo essentially says that God has no hands but our hands, and no feet but our feet. It was not entirely clear if Caputo even believes that God exists, for, on the one hand, Caputo seems to suggest that God makes Godself aloof to give us choice and the opportunity to act, yet, on the other hand, Caputo addresses the question of why we should even pray when we are unsure if someone is really listening. Still, for Caputo, we, through our actions, make God present.

While I was not particularly floored by Caputo’s main point, I did enjoy some of his illustrations: the priest who had doubts about God yet remained a priest because he was helping people; how Martha may have been serving because she was spiritually secure and did not need to sit at Jesus’ feet listening (the text is Luke 10:38-42); how hope is not allowing past negative experiences to get one down (Caputo said this in discussing whether artificial intelligence could ever have hope); that Derrida, an atheist, was a man of prayer; and how the Bible is a book of suggestions that paints a picture of what life under God’s rule could be like.

Caputo discusses other issues, such as inter-religious dialogue and the question of whether we have the religion that we have on account of where we were born. Caputo believes that different cultures may have received their own revelations, and that we should celebrate differences. Caputo’s approach is rather post-modern.

Some parts of the book resonated with me, and some parts did not so much, but I found that being in a critiquing (or heresy-hunting) mode was not the best way for me to read and appreciate this book. A poet on a movie that I recently watched told a friend that she should not worry whether she understands the poetry or not, but should simply let it wash over her. That was how I approached Caputo’s musings.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Cross Focused Reviews, in exchange for an honest review.

Foundations for a Radical Theology, Part 8 - A Radical Re-Examination of the Christian Faith

Radical Theology is a philosophical conversation without biblical input to its conservation except for its existential contributions of cultural belief sets drawn from past and present religious communities. What this means is that radical theology is ideally an neutral (not atheistic) conversation of all things religious, irreligious, and all points in between.

For the Christian believer this would present an immediate conundrum and one not easily sorted out and yet, if considered as an hermeneutical tool, may present to the Christian the possibility of examining the underpinnings of the church's faith while attempting to launch a post-Christian, post-secular, (post)post-modern conversation with society at large. One that is very much needed in this day and age of religious argument and cultural wars.

The value then for Christian theology might be found in the opportunity to re-examine the church's hermeneutical belief set lately based upon Western Analytic thought since the age of Enlightenment through a combination of Continental Philosophical thought utilizing radical theology's newer development as an existential / phenomenological dissecting tool to re-right Christian hermeneutic thought and convention back into contemporary conversation with society once again.

Alone, present day church culture has gone along its own (secular) trajectories that have not seemed very "biblical" but more "culturally ingrained" and as such, have departed from the "biblical traditions" of the bible to its own re-interpretation of them. However, through continental philosophy and radical theology a return to a biblical hermeneutic laced with possibility and expanded thought might be discovered again. And in the finding re-discover the Person and Work of God in His missional outreach to today's turbulent societies.

Admittedly, using radical theology as an hermeneutical tool may seem incongruous with the overall attempt of examining God's Will and Word through the bible. However, it is through this dispassionate tool set that the possibility of hearing God's testimony again with new ears and new hearts may be reached. How? By breaking down the non-essentials of one's faith and casting these into the fires of darkness so that categories like doubt and uncertainty might be allowed to live in the hearts of the broken to rediscover Jesus' salvific work afresh.

Nor should radical theology be considered simply an atheistic study but rather a non-religious study (or, an a/religious study) that will challenge Christian beliefs at their core. And in the challenging help the Christian church rediscover its faith-life once removed from its culturally-based religious belief sets pre-determining what that faith-life now looks like to what it may become stripped of its religious dogmas and re-focused (or centered) upon Jesus Christ.

Radical theology can therefore be a useful tool both for both the atheist in examining a world without God (or, in Jack Caputo's sense, a world which has absorbed all that God is into its very bones, as a world where God has died and now "divinely insists" within its secular structures). Or, for the Christian church, in examining a world where God may have died in one sense to then "insist within its very structures" while in another sense continues to live as the God we know risen from death with renewed power and vigor to export salvation fully to all the world both intrinsically and extrinsically.

Without radical theology one cannot form a foundation of understanding that would include this "both-and, either-or" sublimity of God's divine work of imputing His sovereign will and Spirit-infused power into humanity's structures (nor even that of the cosmos, inanimate and indeterminately determined as it now exists). But with radical theology a Christian theologian may fully exert a theistic approach above the "roar of religiosity" with an empirical knowledge that even within the nature of nature itself - or, the nature of social structures and humanity itself - that God is there, partnered with us, to bring about His glory and will, however we describe it.

To be sure, an atheistic approach to radical theology would not admit this; or rather, would tell the Christian church that this is an abomination to the usage of radical theology itself. But, this would then portend to the atheistic belief the more superior approach when in fact it is but one approach based upon internal subjectivity prejudiced towards a kind of atheistic "neutrality." For the Christian believer, that prejudice is not his or her internal choice, being smitten by the opposite conviction that God is here and is not dead. That He has been radically transformed by death and resurrection and now made alive in desperately new ways as a Living Being extending throughout the cosmos of His creation. That despite claims of His ontological death, God is very much alive to rule over the evil of this world presenting its generations with existential despair and uncertainty. For the Christian then, radical theology can be a tool set to recover the church's sight - as well as this lost world's vision - of the God who rules and is higher than the wisdom of men and the power of evil.

Used in this sense then, radical theology ironically allows for hope, which is a hope that Jack Caputo looks for too in his own secular, a/theistic approach, though in a different sense from the Catholic tradition he had grown up with - first in naivety as a child, and then as a fervent believer in religious training. A unique training that allowed him to investigate the hermeneutical structures of his faith so that he might do the hard work of examining not only his beliefs, but that of the church's too, as it cross-sects with normative Christian theological structures.

So then, this subject of a "Christian radical theology" can be a hard one to discover, uncover, and move forward given its many premises. But it can be done so long as it is known that what lies ahead is the Scylla and Charybdis of academic biblical criticism:

"Biblical criticism is perennially caught between the Scylla of interpretive freedom

and the Charybdis of irrelevance. Too much hermeneutic freedom and the tradition

disintegrates, losing its epistemological appeal. Too little interpretive freedom and

the Bible becomes merely an irrelevant historical artifact, rather than the living

Word of God." Inherently, evangelical biblical interpretation is unquestionably

caught between a need for relevance and the need for textual validity." - anon

Philosophers of the world, and especially Christian-based philosophers such as Jack Caputo, give to Christian theologians the gift of insight set apart from the church as they are. The church itself has enough of its own burdens let alone to carry the weight of skepticism and disbelief upon its shelf of self-examinations and opportunities. But each theological era must bear its yoke and into this post-Christian era has come radical theology's contemporary insights which may be either (i) demonized by apologetic discourse and excised away or, (ii) addressed with the solemnity and gravity that it deserves. For readers here we would encourage the latter approach in the power and wisdom of the Spirit of God as is possible upon those few men and women expert enough in theology to carry forth this battle of self-examination to the greater good of God's Spirit.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

November 2, 2015

Below are several kinds of definitions

and portrayals of Continental Philosophy

Below are several examples of what a Christian

Radical Theology may mean. However, this would

be incorrectly used of that philosophic discipline and

more typical of an Evangelical meta-physic of theology

Roger Olson - Christian Thoughts About Halloween

Christian Thoughts about Our (American) New National Holiday: Halloween

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/10/christian-thoughts-about-our-american-new-national-holiday-halloween/

by Roger Olson

October 29, 2015

Comments

Of course, it’s not really a “national holiday” in any formal or legal sense; schools, banks and government offices don’t close on October 31. By “new national holiday” mean that, in recent years, what used to be an evening for kids to go door-to-door “trick or treating” has evolved into a popular festival day with television, schools and clubs devoting much time and attention to…whatever it is that Halloween celebrates.

Many Christians, especially conservative evangelicals, have reacted vigorously and critically to the rise of Halloween. They point out that it often involves what philosopher Paul Ricouer labeled “the symbolism of evil” (although he meant something much more than the mostly silly occultism that accompanies a lot of Halloween celebrations). That is, as neo-paganism, Wicca and serious occultism have become more popular, or at least better known publicly, many Christians have shied away from any observance of Halloween because it often includes symbolism drawn from those sources.

Indeed, there are pagan and occult roots of Halloween. “Samhain” (pronounced “saw-win” or “sow-han”) is a pagan festival that allegedly goes back to pre-Christian European, especially Celtic, cultures. There are other terms for the same festival in other European languages. At least according to Wiccans and other neo-pagans, this is the night of the year (October 31-November 1) when the “veil” between the realms of the living and the dead is thinnest and the possibility of the spirits of the dead crossing over is greatest.

This may be why ancient European Christians “baptized” October 31 as “All Saints Eve”—the night before All Saints Day (November 1)—to counter pagan celebration perceived by Christians as opening the door to a demonic realm of activity.

Martin Luther, of course, nailed his “Ninety-five Theses” to the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, so many Protestants celebrate October 31 (or the Sunday nearest to it) as “Reformation Day.”

Some evangelical churches in America have “adopted” October 31 as a special opportunity for a kind of evangelism: “Hell Houses.” During the 1990s and first decade of this century, especially, numerous churches around the country have held religious-themed haunted house events promoting fear of hell.

When I was a kid growing up among conservative evangelical Christians in the Upper Midwest Halloween was simply an evening for children to get candy by dressing up in costumes and going door to door doing some kind of little “trick” (nothing mean or harmful—except for a few rogue teens later at night) and asking for a “treat”—usually a piece of candy. My parents, Pentecostals pastors both, didn’t discourage that, but frowned on using any occult symbolism in costumes or decorations. Ironically, though, some of my most vivid memories of childhood are of our church’s rather elaborate “haunted house” events around Halloween.

During the 1980s and 1990s a new awareness of the reality of serious occultism arose in America. Many newspapers, for example, featured “real witches” (Wiccans) in front page articles and described their covens and “Samhain” rituals. My first exposure to this was in 1980. I may have been dimly aware of it before then, but it seemed like such an obscure subculture that it wasn’t worth taking seriously. In 1980 I was co-teaching a university course (at the university where I was working on my Ph.D. in Religious Studies) entitled “Deity, Mysticism, and the Occult.” We used Ricoeur’s bookThe Symbolism of Evil to give the course serious scholarly content but also required students to read sociologist of religion Robert Ellwood’s Alternative Altars—a survey of non-traditional religions in North America including neo-pagan and occult religions (taken very seriously). The course was wildly popular among the undergraduates of the university partly because we invited guest speakers from various little-known and non-traditional religious movements to visit the class to speak.

The chairman of the Religious Studies Department of the university, who was also my supervisor and “official” teacher of the course (although he rarely attended it), offered me a relatively large sum of money to invite a scholar of “deity, mysticism and/or the occult” to fly in from virtually anywhere to speak to the class. I already knew whom I wanted to invite. A well-known researcher into neo-paganism and Wicca lived in suburban Chicago and I called him up and he agreed to come. I knew him to be a Christian, an ordained Methodist minister, as well as perhaps the most informed non-neo-pagan, non-Wiccan about those phenomena in America.

I met him at the airport when he arrived to speak to the evening class. He knew his assignment—to talk to the class about his research—and the first thing he said to me was “Let’s go find some real witches.” Needless to say, this then still “Pentecostal boy,” was shocked and bit afraid. I asked him how we would do that and he said “Where’s the nearest city phone directory yellow pages?” We found one and he looked under “Occult” in the yellow pages and found two entries. One was near the airport: “The Occult Shoppe.” So we drove there. It was a non-descript store front in a mostly industrial neighborhood. The only indication of its nature was a small sign that said “Occult Shoppe” over the entrance. It had a large plate glass window that was covered inside with curtains.

The scholar and I simply walked in; I stayed near the door. I was almost shaking with trepidation. He walked up to the glass counter containing all kinds of occult-related objects and began a conversation with the two women who owned the store. I listened and looked around. The one room open to the public (there were back rooms for “readings”) had a large pentagram inside a circle on the floor. The scholar informed me later that indicated it was a site for neo-pagan rituals; a coven met there. After he mentioned the names of some nationally-known neo-pagan/Wiccan leaders he knew personally, the women relaxed and answered his questions. They claimed the store “served” about fifty Wiccan covens of several kinds (not Satanists) in the northern part of that large city. They said there were many more covens than that in that city of about two million people. As I examined the not-very-light room I saw pictures of the Mother Goddess and her consort the “horned god,” many jars of herbs and potions and numerous books about the occult.

The scholar informed me that such stores existed in most major cities in America and that some are open to the public and some are not. Since then I have seen many similar stores in cities around the country. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Wicca, especially, became more “exoteric” and less “esoteric.” Eventually, at one college where I taught an annual course on America’s Cults and New Religions I became acquainted with two Wiccans—a priestess of a “Dianic” coven (women only) and a member of a mostly gay coven. Both spoke to my class about neo-paganism and Wicca. Both insisted their religion has nothing to do with Satanism. I became convinced that, while they were serious and meant what they said, the “line” betweensome Wicca and some Satanism is rather thin—at least from a Christian point of view.

(Sidebar: My Wiccan priestess speaker told my class that her Dianic coven met in the basement of a large downtown church—with the church’s “blessing.” She also said that they did not sacrifice animals but vegetables. What vegetables? Pomegranates. I’ll leave it to you, dear readers, to figure out why.)

As a result of the “going public” of Wicca and other neo-pagan religions, and as a result of greater awareness (including some outright paranoia) about Satanism, many conservative evangelical churches dropped Halloween entirely and substituted other, more Christian-themed, events (always with candy, of course) to discourage their kids from even going trick-or-treating. Of course, the public paranoia about “poisoned candy” and candy bars with razor blades in them contributed to that phenomenon. Some hospitals went so far as to offer free X-ray examinations of trick-or-treat candy—to expose any razor blades or other harmful objects that may have been inserted in them.

Through all of that, my wife and I took our daughters trick-or-treating—sometimes in the snow! (One Halloween evening that city received thirty-four inches of snow! We took them trick-or-treating anyway—at their insistence, of course—but only until the snow was knee deep.) We dampened down on the occult symbolism but didn’t abandon Halloween altogether.

However, if I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that public schools, television, and even businesses have recently gone overboard celebrating Halloween. When I was as kid there may have been some minor Halloween observance at school, and that was the case when my daughters were in public schools, but now many public schools devote the whole day (October 31 or the day before if it falls on a Saturday as this year) to the it. Nearly all prime time network television programs devote the episode before or on Halloween to it. It has become an unofficial national American holiday. Why? Because America has bought into occultism? I don’t think so.

The reason is because it is one “holiday” without overt religious content or connotation. In our political correctness and out of desire not to offend non-Christians, we, to a very large extent, have put the brakes on Christmas—especially in public schools but also in many businesses (except insofar as they can use it to make money, but without any religious symbolism). I think we, as a culture and society, have tended to hype Halloween because it is perceived as a non-religious holiday so no one should be offended.

I once was asked to attend a public school board’s special meeting to discuss the observance and celebration of Halloween in its schools. A group of fundamentalist parents had objected to a school’s requiring students to role play being witches and wizards in a certain “fun” learning event. The kids didn’t want to and then parents tried to make their case that this was no different, really, from requiring atheist students from pretending to be saints or apostles or priests—because Wicca and neo-paganism are real religions, not mere fantasy. I spoke for them on that particular point—revealing the reality, the seriousness, of neo-paganism and Wicca as religious forms of life. That particular school board treated the complaining parents and me as would-be fundamentalist censors and controllers of curricula. They were extremely hostile to us. All the parents were asking is that their kids, and others, be offered the opportunity to “opt out” of such events insofar as they offended their religious sensibilities. The school board scoffed at the idea and basically rejected the whole plea. I was appalled.

(Sidebar: When I invited Wiccans to speak to my class I always offered students the opportunity to be absent without any penalty. A few usually opted for that and stayed away that day. I also forbid the speakers from doing anything other than explaining and answering questions. The priestess once attempted to get the class to participate with her in a ritual of “earth healing.” I stopped her. Occasionally a parent or two would call to complain about that aspect of the course. I routinely asked them if they wanted their student to encounter Wiccans and other neo-pagans in a Christian environment where we examined their beliefs and practices critically and prayed for them and where I explained why they are mistaken in their beliefs from an evangelical Christian point of view, or to encounter them first outside such an environment. That usually, perhaps always, stopped them from objecting to the president. I no longer teach any similar course; my teaching for the past sixteen plus years had focused solely on Christian theology. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, it included religion and culture classes such as “America’s Cults and New Religions” which I advertised to students as it was an elective, as “Unsafe Sects.” One young male student had only heard, not seen, that unofficial title of the course and walked out when he discovered it was a religion course! Figure it out.)

So, to wrap it all up. I have no objection to “trick or treating.” In fact, I am looking forward to going trick or treating with my grandchildren this Saturday. Nor do I object to “haunted house” events so long as they do not go overboard and traumatize children. I do worry, however, that our culture may be going overboard with Halloween observance and celebration to the detriment of other, perhaps more culturally serious, holidays. I am ambivalent about Halloween. The rule I would suggest to Christian parents and pastors is: no occult symbolism. I do think occultism can become obsessive for some young people and it can be (from my evangelical Christian perspective) a door into a demonic realm. That’s a door best not opened.

Note to potential commenters: I do not permit people to “take over” my blog to promote their own religions, philosophies or worldviews. This is admittedly and openly and evangelical Christian blog; that is the perspective from which it is written and the section of Patheos where it appears. Feel free to correct anything that is factually in error, but I will not approve and post comments that attempt to “preach” or promote alternative religions, philosophies or worldviews. I always welcome sincerely asked questions.

* * * * * * * * 

Select Comments

from Roger's Post

Kristen Rosser

I don't think the fact that some religions celebrate Halloween as a religious holiday needs to be a problem for Christians. Here are some of my thoughts from a blog post of my own:

----

The modern secular celebration of Halloween really doesn't include any divination or witchcraft. It has nothing to do with sun-worship; in fact, it's not about worship at all...

Facing our fears by laughing at them or playing with safe versions of them is a very human thing to do, and it seems to be a healthy coping mechanism. Our English idiom "whistling in the dark" encapsulates the concept, which takes other forms such as jokes about death and dying....

John Santino was interviewed on the TheoFantastique blog in October 2007, and he shared these further insights:

"The study of ritual, festival, and celebration offers concepts for understanding large public events such as Halloween. The idea that there are certain periods when the everyday rules are meant to be broken is one. Also, the idea that during times of transition (in the life cycle or seasonal), all bets are off–the dead can mingle with the living; children are allowed to demand treats from adults, people dress in special costumes; things are turned upside-down and inside-out. These ideas help us to see Halloween for its importance. It is a time when we face our taboos (death being a major one) and playfully accept them as part of life."

Halloween is about facing our fears through the joint vehicles of pretend and partying. It's about recognizing that while we live on this earth we are part of the cycles of this earth, and that "seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease (Gen. 8:22)." To celebrate the harvest is also to accept the dying of the year. Halloween is about both. Christ has taken the sting of death; why not let Halloween help take some of its still-remaining fear?

[Historically, this is a] holiday that upends our rules and usual patterns. The kingdom of God is like that too: the child is the first to enter, the greatest shall be the servant, we save our lives by losing them. Halloween is the day when we open our doors to whoever knocks and give of our substance to "the least of these" who is standing there with an open bag. Isn't this a picture of the kingdom? Why, then, shouldn't we let it teach us its simple lesson?

----

I agree that we shouldn't participate in actual pagan religious rituals. However, except for a small minority of the population, Halloween isn't about religious ritual-- it is, as you said, Roger, largely a secular celebration. But as Christians we can find our own meaning in it. It's a Romans 14-type thing, I think-- if we observe the day and glorify God, that's fine; if we don't observe it, that's also fine.

* * * * * * * * 

Kon Michailidis

Halloween is a lot of fun. That is the problem. Christmas and Easter are not times of fun (mainly) but they are times of joy. There is a world of difference. Halloween will never be a time of joy. The spirit behind it is totally different. Christmas and Easter need to be specially taught, but Halloween seems to come naturally into an environment devoid of Christian teaching, with teachers and students picking up on the many dark, death- related symbols of it as if it was second nature. That at least has been my observation as a teacher and adviser.

Celebrating John Cobb's Global Spirit

John B. Cobb, Theologian, Academic, Pragmatist

John Cobb's Global Spirit

https://processandfaith.org/john-cobbs-global-spirit/

by Bruce Epperly

September 23, 2015

"As a Christian theologian, Cobb asks “Can Christ be good news?” and then

proceeds to share the good news of a faith that is inclusive, healing, hospitable,

and growing; a faith that embraces the marginalized, placing them at the center

of the theological adventure." - Bruce Epperly

In my last contribution, I reflected on Bernard Loomer’s vision of “size” or “stature” as the ability to embrace as much of reality as possible, including contrasting positions, without losing your spiritual center. Perhaps no theologian in recent times has been as inclusive as John Cobb. John has been my teacher and mentor for over forty years and is one of models upon which I have based my own teaching, ministry, writing, and administration. I have been inspired by Cobb’s vision of Christ as the embodiment and lure of God’s aim at creative transformation. In a polarizing age, I have taken to heart Cobb’s affirmation that Christ is the Way that excludes no way. Christ is the inspiration for the quest for truth and enables us to embrace wisdom and healing wherever it is found.

Cobb’s global spirit is embodied in the breadth of his theological and ethical commitments. Many theologians and scholars choose to focus on the micro, staying with the same subject matter their whole careers. In contrast, Cobb has always been on the move, and inspires his students to be ecumenical and dynamic in spirit as well. Cobb has been a leader not only in process theology but also in reflections on ecology and global climate change, economics, interfaith dialogue, pluralism, feminism, the intersection of theology and prayer, to name a few of the areas in which he has illumined laypersons, academics, and pastors. Cobb’s theology is both academic and practical. His work reminds scholars that one of our vocations is to be agents of creative transformation, bringing healing and justice to the world. As a Christian theologian, Cobb asks “Can Christ be good news?” and then proceeds to share the good news of a faith that is inclusive, healing, hospitable, and growing; a faith that embraces the marginalized, placing them at the center of the theological adventure.

If theology and philosophy are to tell big stories, intended to transform and heal the world,

then nothing is too small or too large for a theologian’s interest. - Bruce Epperly

As students at Claremont, many of us thought that between the creativity of John Cobb and David Griffin, there would little room for innovation on our part. Over the course of our careers, we discovered that Cobb and Griffin opened the door for our own creative thinking. Just think of the creativity of some of my classmates – Jay McDaniel, Catherine Keller, David Lull, Rita Nakashima Brock, and Rebecca Parker! Nothing is off limits or out of bounds for a process theologian. If theology and philosophy are to tell big stories, intended to transform and heal the world, then nothing is too small or too large for a theologian’s interest. In my own journey, I find myself dialoging with Cobb as I embark on my own adventures as a process theologian whose work has embraced healing and wholeness, spiritual formation, ministerial well-being, biblical studies, complementary medicine, and emerging Christianity. There is always more to explore if we are faithful to the God of process. There are more pathways to healing than we can imagine if we affirm that the aim of the universe – God’s vision – is toward the production of beauty.

I am grateful for the wisdom of John Cobb and his willingness to support his students with affirmations and inspirations. His way invites us to see holiness in every pathway of truth and work toward healing of this good earth and its peoples.

* * * * * * * * * *

Wikipedia - John Cobb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb

Below is a selection of content from Wikipedia's fuller discussion:

John B. Cobb, Jr. (born February 9, 1925) is an American theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist. Gary Dorrien has described Cobb as one of the two most important North American theologians of the twentieth century (the other being Rosemary Radford Ruether).[1] Cobb is often regarded as the preeminent scholar in the field of process philosophy andprocess theology—the school of thought associated with the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.[2] Cobb is the author of more than fifty books.[3] In 2014, Cobb was elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[4]

A unifying theme of Cobb's work is his emphasis on ecological interdependence—the idea that every part of the ecosystem is reliant on all the other parts. Cobb has argued that humanity's most urgent task is to preserve the world on which it lives and depends,[5] an idea which his primary influence—philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead—describes as "world-loyalty."[6]

Cobb is well known for his transdisciplinary approach, integrating insights from many different areas of study and bringing different specialized disciplines into fruitful communication. Because of his broad-minded interest and approach, Cobb has been influential in a wide range of disciplines, including theology, ecology, economics, biology and social ethics.

In 1971, he wrote the first single-author book in environmental ethics—Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology—which argued for the relevance of religious thought in approaching theecological crisis.[7] In 1989, he co-authored the book For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, Environment, and a Sustainable Future, which critiqued current global economic practice and advocated for a sustainable, ecology-based economics. He has written extensively on religious pluralism and interfaith dialogue, particularly between Buddhism and Christianity, as well as the need to reconcile religion and science.

Cobb is the co-founder and current co-director of the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, California.[8] The Center for Process Studies remains the leading Whitehead-related institute, and has witnessed the launch of more than thirty related centers at academic institutions throughout the world, including twenty-three centers in China.[9][10] Cobb is also founder and president of the Institute for the Postmodern Development of China, which uses Whiteheadian ideas in order to move toward a sustainable economy and address practical problems associated with social change and globalization.[11]

Recently, Cobb co-founded the organization Pando Populus. Pando Populus aims to create an "ecological civilization," and is co-organizing a major conference on "Seizing An Alternative" with the Center for Process Studies in June 2015.

Transdisciplinary work

Although Cobb is most often described as a theologian, the overarching tendency of his thought has been toward the integration of many different areas of knowledge, employing Alfred North Whitehead's transdisciplinary philosophical framework as his guiding insight.[1] As a result, Cobb has done work in a broad range of fields.

Philosophy of education

Cobb has consistently opposed the splitting of education and knowledge into discrete and insulated disciplines and departments.[24] He believes that the current university model encourages excessive abstraction because each specialized area of study defines its own frame of reference and then tends to ignore the others, discouraging interdisciplinary dialogue and inhibiting a broad understanding of the world.[24]

To combat these problems, Cobb argues that discrete “disciplines” in general—and theology in particular—need to re-emerge from their mutual academic isolation.[25] Theology should once again be tied to ethical questions and practical, everyday concerns, as well as a theoretical understanding of the world. In service to this vision, Cobb has consistently sought to integrate knowledge from biology, physics, economics, and other disciplines into his theological and philosophical work.[26]

Constructive postmodern philosophy

Alfred North Whitehead, Cobb's

primary intellectual influence.

Cobb was convinced that Alfred North Whitehead was right in viewing both nature and human beings as more than just purposeless machines.[27] Rather than seeing nature as purely mechanical and human consciousness as a strange exception which must be explained away, Whiteheadian naturalism went in the opposite direction by arguing that subjective experience of the world should inform a view of the rest of nature as more than just mechanical. In short, nature should be seen as having a subjective and purposive aspect that deserves attention.[27]

Speaking to this need of moving beyond classically "modern" ideas, in the 1960s Cobb was the first to label Whiteheadian thought as “postmodern.”[28] Later, when deconstructionists began to describe their thought as “postmodern,” Whiteheadians changed their own label to “constructive postmodernism.”[29]

Like its deconstructionist counterpart, constructive postmodernism arose partly in response to dissatisfaction with Cartesian mind-matter dualism, which viewed matter as an inert machine and the human mind as wholly different in nature.[29][30] While modern science has uncovered voluminous evidence against this idea, Cobb argues that dualistic assumptions continue to persist:

"On the whole, dualism was accepted by the general culture. To this day it shapes the structure of the university, with its division between the sciences and the humanities. Most people, whether they articulate it or not, view the world given to them in sight and touch as material, while they consider themselves to transcend that purely material status."[29]

While deconstructionists have concluded that we must abandon any further attempts to create a comprehensive vision of the world, Cobb and other constructive postmodernists believe that metaphysics and comprehensive world-models are possible and still needed.[29][31] In particular, they have argued for a new Whiteheadian metaphysics based on events rather than substances.[29][32] In this formulation, it is incorrect to say that a person or thing ("substance") has a fundamental identity that remains constant, and that any changes to the person or thing are secondary to what it is.[33] Instead, each moment in a person's life ("event") is seen as a new actuality, thus asserting that continual change and transformation are fundamental, while static identities are far less important.[34] This view more easily reconciles itself with certain findings of modern science, such as evolution and wave-particle duality.[35]

Environmental ethics

Ecological themes have been pervasive in Cobb's work since 1969, when he turned his attention to the ecological crisis.[5] He became convinced that environmental issues constituted humanity's most pressing problem. Cobb writes:

"During the seventies my sense of the theological vocation changed. I did not lose interest in developing the Christian tradition so as to render it intelligible, convincing, and illuminating in a changing context. But I did reject the compartmentalization of my discipline of 'constructive theology,' especially in its separation from ethics, and more generally in its isolation from other academic disciplines... I was persuaded that no problem could be more critical than that of a decent survival of a humanity that threatened to destroy itself by exhausting and polluting its natural context."[5]

Cobb went on to write the first single-author book in environmental ethics, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology, in 1971.[36] In the book, he argued for an ecological worldview that acknowledges the continuity between human beings and other living things, as well as their mutual dependence. He also proposed that Christianity specifically needed to appropriate knowledge from the biological sciences in order to undercut its anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) and devaluation of the non-human world.[37]

City Hall in Claremont, California. Cobb has
lived and worked in Claremont since 1958.

Critique of growth-oriented economics

Cobb's economic critiques arose as a natural extension of his interest in ecological issues. He recognized that he could not write about an ecological, sustainable, and just society without including discussion of economics.[38]

As part of his investigation into why economic policies so frequently worsened the ecological situation, in the 1980s Cobb decided to re-evaluate Gross National Product (GNP) andGross Domestic Product (GDP) as measures of economic progress.[39] Together with his son, Clifford Cobb, he developed an alternative model, the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW),[39] which sought to "consolidate economic, environmental, and social elements into a common framework to show net progress."[40] The name of the metric would later change to Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).[41] A recent (2013) article has shown that global GPI per capita peaked in 1978, meaning that the social and environmental costs ofeconomic growth have outweighed the benefits since that time.[42]

Cobb also co-authored a book with Herman Daly in 1989 entitled For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, Environment, and a Sustainable Future, which outlined policy changes intended to create a society based on community and ecological balance. In 1992, For the Common Good earned Cobb and Daly the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.[43]

In recent years, Cobb has described current growth-oriented economic systems as the "prime example of corruption" in American culture and religion:

"Since the rise of modern economics, Christians have been forced to give up their criticism of greed, because the economists said "greed is good, and if you really want to help people, be as greedy as possible."”[44]

Cobb sees such values as being in direct opposition with the message of Jesus, which in many places explicitly criticizes the accumulation of wealth. Because of Christianity's widespread acceptance of such economic values, Cobb sees Christians as far less confident in proclaiming the values of Jesus.[44]

Biology and religion

Along with Whitehead, Cobb has sought to reconcile science and religion in places where they appear to conflict, as well as to encourage religion to make use of scientific insights and vice versa.[45]

In the area of religion and biology, he co-wrote The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community with Australian geneticist Charles Birch in 1981. The book critiqued the dominant biological model of mechanism, arguing that it leads to the study of organisms in abstraction from their environments.[46] Cobb and Birch argue instead for an "ecological model" which draws no sharp lines between the living and non-living, or between an organism and its environment.[47] The book also argues for an idea of evolution in which adaptive behavior can lead to genetic changes.[48] Cobb and Birch stress that a species "co-evolves with its environment," and that in this way intelligent purpose plays a role in evolution:

"Evolution is not a process of ruthless competition directed to some goal of ever-increasing power or complexity. Such an attitude, by failing to be adaptive, is, in fact, not conducive to evolutionary success. A species co-evolves with its environment. Equally, there is no stable, harmonious nature to whose wisdom humanity should simply submit. Intelligent purpose plays a role in adaptive behaviour, and as environments change its role is increased."[49]

The Liberation of Life stresses that all life (not just human life) is purposeful and that it aims for the realization of richer experience.[50] Cobb and Birch develop the idea of "trusting life" as a religious impulse, rather than attempting to achieve a settled, perfected social structure that does not allow for change and evolution.[51]

Religious pluralism and interreligious dialogue

Cobb has participated in extensive interreligious and interfaith dialogue, most notably with Masao Abe, a Japanese Buddhist of the Kyoto School of philosophy.[52] Cobb's explicit aim was to gain ideas and insights from otherreligions with an eye toward augmenting and "universalizing" Christianity.[53] Cobb writes:

"...it is the mission of Christianity to become a universal faith in the sense of taking into itself the alien truths that others have realized. This is no mere matter of addition. It is instead a matter of creative transformation. An untransformed Christianity, that is, a Christianity limited to its own parochial traditions, cannot fulfill its mission of realizing the universal meaning of Jesus Christ."[54]

In short, Cobb does not conceive of dialogue as useful primarily to convert or be converted, but rather as useful in order to transform both parties mutually, allowing for a broadening of ideas and a reimagining of each faith in order that they might better face the challenges of the modern world.[55][56]

Cobb has also been active in formulating his own theories of religious pluralism, partly in response to another Claremont Graduate University professor, John Hick.[57] Cobb's pluralism has sometimes been identified as a kind of "deep" pluralism or, alternately, as a "complementary" pluralism.[58] He believes that there are actually three distinct religious ultimates: 1) God, 2) Creativity/Emptiness/Nothingness/Being-itself, and 3) the cosmos/universe.[59] Cobb believes that all of these elements are necessary and present in some form in every religion but that different faiths tend to stress one ultimate over the others.[60] Viewed in this way, different religions may be seen to complement each other by providing insight into different religious ultimates.[61] Cobb's pluralism thus avoids the criticism of conflating religions that are actually very different (for instance, Buddhism and Christianity) while still affirming the possible truths of both.[61]

Revitalizing Christianity in a pluralistic world

David Ray Griffin. Cobb co-founded the
Center for Process Studies with Griffin in 1973.

Cobb believed that through at least the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, American Protestant theology had been largely derivative from European (specificallyGerman) theology.[62] In the late 1950s, Cobb and Claremont professor James Robinson decided that the time had come to end this one-sidedness and move to authentic dialogue between American and European theologians.[63] To establish real mutuality, they organized a series of conferences of leading theologians in Germany and the United States and published a series of volumes called "New Frontiers in Theology."[64]

After writing several books surveying contemporary forms of Christian Protestantism, Cobb turned in the mid-1960s to more original work which sought to bring Alfred North Whitehead'sideas into the contemporary American Protestant scene.[65] Cobb aimed to reconstruct a Christian vision that was more compatible with modern knowledge and more ready to engage with today’s pluralistic world.[58] He did this in a number of ways.

For one, Cobb has stressed the problems inherent in what he calls the “substantialist” worldview—ultimately derived from Classical Greek philosophy—that still dominates Christian theology, as well as most of western thought.[66] This "substantialist" way of thinking necessitates a mind-matter dualism, in which matter and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of entities. It also encourages seeing relations between entities as being unimportant to what the entity is "in itself."[67] In contrast to this view, Cobb follows Whitehead in attributing primacy to events and processes rather than substances.[66] In this Whiteheadian view, nothing is contained within its own sharp boundaries. In fact, the way in which a thing relates to other things is what makes it "what it is." Cobb writes:

“If the substantialist view is abandoned, a quite different picture emerges. Each occasion of human experience is constituted not only by its incorporation of the cellular occasions of its body but also by its incorporation of aspects of other people. That is, people internally relate to one another. Hence, the character of one's being, moment by moment, is affected by the health and happiness of one's neighbors.”[66]

For Cobb, this metaphysics of process is better-aligned with the Bible, which stresses history, community, and the importance of one’s neighbors.[66]

Claremont School of Theology, 2013

Also, instead of turning further inward to preserve a cohesive Christian community, Cobb turned outward in order to discover truths that Christianity may not yet possess.[53]This is in direct opposition to those who feel that Christianity as a religious system is absolutely final, complete, and free of error. Cobb has not only turned to other religions (most notably Buddhism) in order to supplement Christian ideas and systems,[68] but also to other disciplines, including biology, physics, and economics.

In fact, Cobb has not shied away even from re-imaging what is now regarded as the “traditional” Christian notion of God. He does not believe that God is omnipotent in the sense of having unilateral control over all events, since Cobb sees reconciling total coercive power with love and goodness to be an impossible task.[66] Instead, all creatures are viewed as having some degree of freedom that God cannot override.[69] Cobb solves the problem of evil by denying God’s omnipotence, stressing instead that God’s power is persuasive rather than coercive, that God can influence creatures but not determine what they become or do.[70] For Cobb, God’s role is to liberate and empower.[71]

Against traditional theism, Cobb has also denied the idea that God is immutable (unchanging) and impassible (unfeeling).[72] Instead, he stresses that God is affected and changed by the actions of creatures, both human and otherwise.[66] For Cobb, the idea that God experiences and changes does not mean that God is imperfect—quite the contrary. Instead, God is seen as experiencing with all beings, and hence understanding and empathizing with all beings, becoming "the fellow sufferer who understands."[73]Cobb argues that this idea of God is more compatible with the Bible, in which Jesus suffers and dies.

Additionally, Cobb's theology has argued against the idea of salvation as a singular, binary event in which one is either saved or not saved for all time. Rather than seeing one's time in the world as a test of one's morality in order to enter a heavenly realm, Cobb sees salvation as the continual striving to transform and perfect our experience in this world.[66] Cobb's idea of salvation focuses less on moral categories and more on aesthetic categories—such as a preference for intense experience over dull experience, or beauty rather than ugliness. Cobb writes:

"If morality is bound up with contributing to others, the crucial question is: What is to be contributed? One contribution might be making them more moral, and that is fine. But finally, true morality cannot aim simply at the spread of morality. It must aim at the wellbeing of those it tries to help in some broader sense. For process thought that must be the perfection of their experience inclusively."[66]

Cobb admits that the idea of morality being subservient to aesthetics is "shocking to many Christians,"[66] yet he argues that there must be more to life than simply being morally good or morally bad and that aesthetic categories fulfill this function specifically because they are defined as goods in themselves.

Within the last twenty years, Cobb has become increasingly distressed by the popular identification of Christianity with the religious right and the weak response of mainstream Protestants. To encourage a stronger response, he organized Progressive Christians Uniting with the noted Episcopal priest George Regas in 1996,[74] chaired its reflection committee, and edited a number of its books. As the perceived gap between the policies of the American government and Christian teaching grew wider, these books moved beyond simply reformist proposals. The last of these was entitled Resistance: The New Role of Progressive Christians.

Cobb's most recent book is entitled Spiritual Bankruptcy: A Prophetic Call to Action. It argues against both religiousness and secularism, claiming that what is needed is the secularization of the wisdom traditions.[75]

The influence of Cobb's thought in China

Process philosophy in the tradition of Alfred North Whitehead is often considered a primarily American philosophical movement, but it has spread globally and has been of particular interest to Chinese thinkers. As one of process philosophy's leading figures, Cobb has taken a leadership role in bringing process thought to the East, most specifically to help China develop a more ecological civilization—a goal which the current Chinese government has written into its constitution.[76][10]

With Zhihe Wang, Cobb founded the Institute for Postmodern Development of China (IPDC) in 2005, and he is currently the president of its board of directors.[11] Through the IPDC, Cobb helps to coordinate the work of twenty-three collaborative centers in China, as well as to organize annual conferences on ecological civilization.[9][10]