Living Practical Applications of Process Thought

What is Process Thought?

by R.E. Slater

November 2, 2020

Below I have posted three articles reflecting on the practical outcomes of process thought (otherwise known as process philosophy) and how process thinking may be applied into life situations.

As a Christian, I find process thought to cross many, if not all, of the barriers of communication between humanity and with creation. If it has any reality at all then process should be found pervasively across all academic disciplines; across all structures of society; across all languages, cultures and religions; and, across our innermost core and well as God Himself. The way God is, and how God communicates, is the essence of process.

For myself, as a Christian, looking for philosophical and theological foundations on which to build, I see process thought's essence coming directly from observations of our Creator-Redeemer God who is the ground of our being and essence. All that we are, all that creation is, is very God Himself (sic, process relational panentheism).

As such, process theology builds upon process thought and philosophy to say that God's generative love and goodness is the force which impells process-driven life forward: its becoming, unfolding, emergence, and experience.

Four Characteristics of Process Being & Creation:

1 - Divine love and goodness is an embedded and driving process inhabiting all aspects of life. But it can be defeated by a freewill creation whose agency can foul up its main constitutive driving forces. 

2 - Our Creator-God has set in motion hope, promise, love, and goodness as a constitutive basis emmenating from all that He is.

3 - By God's own divine atonement and redemption (which also must be looked upon as divinely embedding processes) God's-Self has doubled down on bringing harmonious fellowship between all creation with itself and with Himself.

4 - And finally, process theology expands on these ideas by recognizing process as the fundamental driving force behind all other driving forces.

Thus and thus whether evolutionary, social, or religious processes, all are subtended in the initiating God of compelling love from whom all things flow.

For practical applications of process thinking I highlight three examples: (i) The building of ecological societies in China; (ii) the building of compassionate communities in relationship to Black Lives Matter and social justice; and, (iii) the advocacy of listening, literacy, and communication between interfaith beliefs. All three examples are due to the alignment and involvement of Jay McDaniel year's earlier into these living communities of practical process applications. Thank you Jay.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * *

Why Process Philosophy?

http://www.permuted.org.uk/process1.htm

The Process Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead prioritizes freedom and creativity. The system in its fully developed form is also deeply complex, and its professional discussion is weighed down with jargon. But in its simplest form, process philosophy is about engaging in the process of what we are, what we do, and how we can guide, develop and create our own future.

Events

Process emphasizes the space between two points. It's neither the start that's important, nor the end; but the travelling between. In the case of Whitehead, this travelling in between is what makes up reality. That is, Whitehead, in contrast with much philosophical - and everyday - thinking, doesn't regard 'matter' as the stuff of reality, but instead treats 'events' as the most real things that there are.

Novelty and Adventure

As a philosopher, Whitehead focused on practical matters. He recognized the barrenness of theory without practice, of education in a vacuum, of authority without responsibility, and action without purpose. His aim always was a 'creative advance', the creation and engendering of something new, something novel, something that was in a literal sense 'new under the Sun'. The past was relevant for Whitehead, but not overly so. The authorities of history were interesting, but not to be followed blindly. Experience and adventure, and the risk of the unknown: these are what drove his metaphysics.

Nothing is True

A key implication of his work is that reality doesn't have to be like 'this' or like 'that'. There's no ultimate reason why we are living in this way, in this world, in this universe. Our existence can be thought of as something like a particular rhythm set within an infinite beat, it being the rhythm that sets the tone of reality. But there is nothing to stop the establishment of new rhythms, new realities. Process philosophy is thus partly an 'aesthetic metaphysic'. What tends to succeed are those rhythms of creating which bring forth the most effective and most elegant patterns. I sometimes think of this as the Collaging of Reality.

* * * * * * * * *

R.E. Slater -

One of the areas process philosophy is being examined is in China. China has been driving forwards since the 1990's towards the idea of ecological societies in balance and in rhythm with nature.

Because of process philosophy's all encom-passing nature, it can easily serve as both foundation and driver for China's vision. The reason it can do this is because nature, planet earth, and the universe are all process mechanisms unfolding every moment in interactive, collective community with, and impact upon, one another.

Process is a cosmic (cosmos-based) mechanism on which process evolution runs. So too with all of life - including humanity. Humanity's job is to find it's balance and rhythm again with nature, synch up to it, and to each other. Such effort would be the start of discarding our biased attitudes of superiority over creation.

An attitude that uses nature only for our wants and needs rather than recognizing the biotic communities we live within with it's own wants and needs. How we each impact the other for good or for ill.

Biogenic and communal biotic process equalization is an aspect of the larger idea process philosophy identifies as essential processes humanity must learn to inhabit in compassionate communities moving through open futures filled with chaotic challenge inhabited by an agency driven creation.

As example, the Chinese civilization has enough of its old cultures left to perhaps offset the adverse affects of the Westernization of its land and peoples by moving towards the idea of process communities.

Similarly, Western civilizations should take note and begin doing the same as we face the rigors and chaos of crises from weather events to rolling pandemics to resource challenges such as  fresh water to drink, fresh air to breathe, and  fresh, unpolluted greenways to recreate and grow food (known as agricultural beltways or regional habitat zones). If not, we can expect more of the same crises as humanity remains unsynched with nature.

In summary, process-based societal living addresses how to reorientate and manage Western cultures gone unhealthily rogue in their economic and political policies, theologies of usury and theft, and practices and attitudes habituating ignorance and the blind eye to what is happening all around itself as the prime cause and motivator.

Teaching & Learning Process in China

https://www.openhorizons.org/process-in-china.html

by Jay McDaniel of Open Horizons

process in china article link

Teaching Whitehead in China today, with Kevin Clarke, and students from the

department of education at Harbin Normal University, all teachers-in-the-making.

Emerging Hopes in China

The Sunshine Eco-Village, Process Philosophy,

and the Resurrection of Tao Yuanming

Go to the Website for Complete Reading of Each Subtitle:

• Why This Page? A Word from Jay McDaniel and John Cobb
• Audio Version of Tao Yuanming's Peach Blossom Spring
• The Sunshine International Ecovillage in Zheijian Province
• The Resurrection of Tao Yuanming
• Process Philosophy in Five Sentences
• Further Reflections on Sunshine Village
• The Way of Creative Compassion: Process Philosophy in Action
• ​Lessons to Learn from Tao Yuanming

1. Why This Page?

A Word from Jay McDaniel

In The Ecological Era and Classical Chinese Naturalism: A Case Study of Tao Yuanming, Professor Shuyuan Lu proposes that the great Chinese nature poet, Tao Yuanming, can be "resurrected" when people reclaim their felt bonds with the more-than-human world and live accordingly. This page offers two illustrations of that resurrection: the inspirational work of the Sunshine International Eco-Village in Zhejiang Province and that of Process Philosophers in China. Along the way I explain what process thinking is for those who do not know it. Readers might also be interested in another page on this site: Open Horizons China. At the end of the page, I offers a "process" appreciation of core themes in Professor Lu's book. (Jay McDaniel)

A Word from John Cobb

​"Many of us speak generally and appreciatively of classical Chinese thought and of its potential relevance to our time and need. Some of us know that there was a great Chinese thinker by the name of Tao Yuanming whose thought was especially significant and useful to the Chinese tradition. Now Professor Lu Shuyuan has not only described that thought in nuanced detail but located it in relation to Western thinkers so as to display the value of Tao Yuanming's insights." (John B. Cobb Jr.)

​Addendum: Powerpoints for Use in

Introducing Process Thinking

Ecological Civilization and Whole Person Education:

A PPT on Process Thinking for Chinese Readers

Download File

Collecting Light:

A PPT on Process Thinking for Chinese Readers

Download File

Ecological Civilization and Whole Person Education (In Chinese)

Download File

5

Process Philosophy in Five Sentences

Process Thinking in Five Chinese Sentences

1. 一切皆在联系中，一个现实实有存在于其它现实实有之中。

 

2. 万物皆流变，流变皆有其模式。

3. 万物有情，一切生物都值得被尊重。

4. 人类是宇宙关系之中的一小部分，但是人类的使命是伟大的。即带着尊重去关心他者，特别是弱者，以及不遗余力地建设生态文明。

5.  享受生活，关爱他人，宽恕他人，身心愉悦，眼里和心底都是美

A Very Rough Paraphrase in English

1.  Everything is connected to everything else: every actual entity is present in every other actual entity even as each entity is also unique.

2.  Everything is flowing and changing, and there are patterns and rhythms within the change.

3.  Everything is filled with energy and feeling, and all living beings deserve respect and care.

4.  We humans are small but included in a larger web of life, and our mission – our great work – is to help build ecological civilizations: that is, communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, humane to animals, in harmony with the rhythms of the earth, and spiritually satisfying, with no one left behind.

​

5.  Enjoy life, care for others, forgive others, be healthy in mind and body, and keep your eyes and heart on beauty.

* * * * * * * * *

R.E. Slater - 

Here is an example of process thought in action in society. One of its outcomes is the formation of compassionate communities. In this instance its support of Black communities in need of being heard socially against despair, depression, active racism, and so on. To be welcomed, embraced, wanted, enjoyed, respected, and invited. Process thought speaks to social equality, justice, equal opportunity, fair housing, food availability, and locality. This can easily be applied to poor whites, Muslim communities, Catholic-based Hispanic neighbor-hoods, transgenders, gays, and so forth. An open democracy allows all voices to be heard, recognized, and respected. This would be an example of Process in action. Such action forms the basis for an ecological society moving towards balance, harmony, and generative values.

Introduction by Jay McDaniel

of Open Horizons

An essay by Dr. Richard Rose, friend par excellence of the Cobb Institute in Claremont, CA. Influenced by Howard Thurman and active in interfaith circles, Dr. Rose is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of La Verne (Ca), program director for the Ecumenical Center for Black Church Studies.

Dr. Rose is a powerful voice at the Cobb Institute. One mission of the Institute is to take the general ideas of process thought and apply them to local initiatives in southern California. The Institute focuses on "compassionate community" as an embodiment of the 'integral ecology' of which Pope Francis speaks in Laudato Si.

An integral ecology is sensitive to the cries of the Earth and the cries of the poor, neither to the exclusion of the other. It emphasizes just, loving, and harmonious relations among people and respective and compassionate relations with other forms of life, responsive to the sacramental beauty of life itself. "Ecological Civilization" is the name given to a community and society that embodies these qualities.

In this imaginative dialogue between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Socrates, Dr. Rose shows how no compassionate community is truly compassionate, and no Ecological Civilization is worth working toward, lest it realize, and cast its lot in, with the Black Lives Matter movement.

- Jay McDaniel

    

 Photo by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash | Photo by Tandem X Visuals on Unsplash

​On Black Lives Matter & Institutional Racism:

A Dialogue Between Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr.

article link

Dr. Richard A Rose

Dr. Rose is a Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of La Verne (CA)

and serves as the Program Director for the Ecumenical Center for Black Church Studies. 

​

SETTING: The year is 2020. Each participant is at home, comfortable in their study. The conversation takes place on Zoom.

SOC: Hello Doctor King? Glad you could dial in. Looks like there is dissatisfaction in your community these days. I have been a well-respected citizen in this area since I left Athens over 2,300 years ago and I have never seen this much discontent. Can you explain to me what’s up?

KING: Sure Socrates.. I know you are busy with your teaching of the youth, bugging city officials and everything. It is nice for you to take time off from your position of social privilege and ask about our condition. So, I’m going to be marching with these young people from BLM this Evening. Even though this march was not approved by the City officials, it is important that we make this statement against the system.

The TRUTH of the matter is that the nation is not living up to its promises and it has practices that make us feel like Lincoln has yet to pronounce the Emancipation Proclamation. 

SOC: Im afraid I’m confused. What do you mean?

KING: Give me a moment. I will be happy to explain. The Declaration of Independence states as I said at the March on Washington. “In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men - yes, black men as well as white men - would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.”

SOC: Sir, I must admit you put forth a strong position. Yet, there are several key ideas that it appears you did not consider prior to your response. 

KING: Pardon me?

SOC: When I had to decide whether or not I would obey the laws of Athens - the laws themselves spoke to me. Hear carefully what they said: “He who disobeys us is triply wrong: 1) in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents. 2) we are the authors of his education. 3) He has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands. (204a) [“But he who has experience of the way we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract to do as we command him.”]

So, although you have legitimate complaints the way to eradicate what you see as systematic racism, is not by marching and causing a disruption of normal life; the best way is to work within the system and change the way people are doing business. Let your little light shine, Dr. King!

KING: Socrates, you and I have much in common. You are in some ways correct, I grew up in a good home, I went to good schools, I was ordained and earned a Ph.D. degree. That is why I’m going to shine my light on you Soc. I’m doing well, however, the vast majority of my folk, especially in the inner-cities, do not have access to the same quality of EDUCATION that allows for full participation in the system. That same system, that abused them, they are then asked to obey. 

SOC: Your marching is leading to looting and even some instances of people being hospitalized and some deaths have occurred. Don’t you bear responsibility for that evil? If I had been shown how my actions, before the trial, were harmful to the larger society, I would have discontinued my behavior. Now, you are aware of your error. As a man of honor, certainly you will do the right thing.

KING: Again, Socrates, you are a man of wisdom. Yes, I try to live a life of honor and I do plan to do the right thing. However, those many years since you left Athens have left you a bit rusty. It is always right to do the right thing. In this case the “right” thing is to disobey the law; I’m not calling for violence, but I do understand the anger of some with the system.

Should, I repent of their sin? I believe my mentor Gandhi would acknowledge your concern and he would encourage me to do so. But my repentance for my brother’s anger, does not erase the original concern. Institutional Racism is still preventing us from breathing in an unobstructed way. You see how Covid-19 has impacted “all” people of color disproportionately. There are too many places where we do not have access to the rooms where decisions are being made. The result are laws and policies that are made that are not good for our community.

SOC: Ah ... yes, but can you begin to pick and choose which laws you like and don’t like? I’m confident that the city officials put a great deal of thought into each law that is on the books. You are placing yourself above the law when you and your crew decide which laws are good for you. What about the rest of society? Don’t they deserve consideration?

KING: I’m glad you asked. Of course the others in society are important when making laws that effect the whole country. There are a few necessary ideas to keep in mind when drafting laws. This is essential:

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

An unjust law a majority inflicts on a minority and is not binding on itself. A just law a majority compels a minority to follow and it is willing to follow itself.

SOC: So change the laws!

KING: That is what the Civil Rights Movement did. But the policies and practices remain.

SOC: So you are telling me there are practices and policies that have been in place for hundreds of years and in other cases corporate policies that affect your lives, but you do not have access to the places the decisions are made.

KING: That is correct.

SOC: And these conditions are causing hardships on workers and their families. That is a concern. And have you approached them and tried to negotiate a better arrangement, better conditions?

KING: Yes, and every time we have been misled, one excuse after another. My people are tired and frustrated. So we have a plan. We have identified our concerns and sought negotiations and have been put off. We believe our cause is just:

So, because of our commitment to justice and truth, we cannot participate in this corrupt system. So we are bringing attention to the institutional corruption in the very system that brings you, Socrates, such satisfaction.

SOC: Well, I see why they call you King. You are the type of person I would want to be King of my ideal state. I like the way you think. The Eternal Truths on which you are building your movement are impressive. Where is this March headed? I think I will join you. Maybe we can work together to get them to reconsider their behavior in the light of self-reflection.

KING: Great! We are always looking for people of outstanding character to join us. I will have a BLM T-shirt for you when you arrive, we will be honored if you will wear it.

SOC: You know I only wear this piece of cloth that looks like a Toga.

KING: Okay, no problem, I will see if I can get you a BLM mask! See you in the Streets!

* * * * * * * * *

R.E. Slater - 

If process thought is any good at all then it must be pervasive. Here's an example

of process at work spiritually crossing the boundrylands of differing faiths and religions...

 

Growing in Spiritual Literacy

Interfaith Center

Site Link Home Page

Fall Session: Sep 30 - Dec 16

Moderated by Jay McDaniel & Sophia Said

Spiritual vision can come through art, scripture, theatre, service to the poor, meditation, dreams and countless other ways. It is how we find our own wisdom and align ourself with Spirit. Sometimes this process involves developing good judgment, deliberative skills, and common sense. Other times we may experience extraordinary perceptions, what are often called revelations. This wednesday’s (10.28.2020) spiritual letter is “V” for Vision. Our guest is Rev. Susan Sims Smith, who is the visionary and founder of two non profits, The Interfaith Center and House of Prayer in Arkansas. She will talk about three key times in her spiritual journey of service where fresh new vision upended her personal plans and brought her to places that she never imagined You can join the class by emailing us your name at theinterfaithcenter@gmail.com Jay McDaniel Sophia Said

Notice - Process Thought Invitation: Oct 31, 9a-noon PST

https://cobb.institute/event/process-thought-at-a-new-threshold/

John Cobb invites the process movement to reflect on the possibility that we are at a new threshold. Maybe, at last, the thinking we have done about creative transformation and ecological civilization will capture the imagination of millions and make a real contribution to radical change of collective behavior. At this gathering we will consider how we can work together to respond to the call to save the world. It’s worth trying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RSVP to receive Zoom meeting information.

https://cobb.institute/event/process-thought-at-a-new-threshold/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Schedule

Process Thought at a New Threshold

https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#

October 31, 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM

9:00: Welcome and Opening Remarks: John Cobb

How has the work of the process community expanded since 2015?

9:10: Center for Process Studies: Andrew Schwartz
9:15: Pando Populus: Eugene Shirley
9:20: Institute for Ecological Civilization: Philip Clayton
9:25: Cobb Institute: John Fahey

What is happening that suggests greater openness to process ideas?

9:30: Philosophy: Dan Dombrowski
9:40: Christian Theology: Thomas Oord
9:50: Spiritual But Not Religious: Damian Geddry
10:00: Interfaith, Arts, and Spirituality: Jay McDaniel
10:10: Science: Matthew Segall

10:20: BREAK

10:30: Education: Richard Rose
10:40: Economics: Mark Anielski
10:50: Agriculture: Sung Sohn
11:00: Mass Media: Philip Clayton
11:10: Younger Generation: Kathleen Jacobson Reeves

How can we respond effectively to the new openness?

11:20: Small Group Discussions
Led by Pat Beiting, Ignacio Castuera, Louis Chase, Kathleen

Jacobson Reeves, Lynne de Jonge, Carol Johnston, Elaine
Padilla, Richard Rose, Jeanyne Slettom, and Bonnie Tarwater

* * * * * * * * *

First Letter by John Cobb Conference Invitation

PROCESS THOUGHT AT A NEW THRESHOLD

https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#

Date: October 31, 2020

Time: 9 am to 12 noon

ZOOM Meeting

An Invitation from John Cobb

In the forties and fifties, the neonaturalist faculty in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago provided a community in which a process understanding was nurtured. By the sixties, the Divinity School joined the mainstream, and the academic disciplines tightened their control of university curricula. There seemed to be no future for the study of Whitehead.

In the avoidance of disappearance there have been two thresholds. The first was institutional. We established a journal (1970) so that scholarly discussion could continue. And we established an official Center for Process Studies (1973). The journal, edited by Lewis Ford, emphasized philosophy and philosophical theology. The Center, co-founded by David Griffin and me, focused on important topics from the process perspective. It cultivated an interest in process thought in many fields.

All of this was extremely marginal in every field. Nevertheless, it created a unique community, directly contrary to the disciplinary fragmentation of the university. Whereas the university disciplines prided themselves on their academic purity, the process community had, as its primary concern, “saving the world.” It adopted from China the term “ecological civilization” to name the alternative (saved) world for which Whitehead’s thought called. It included philosophy and theology, but its greatest success was in officially atheistic China.

By 2015, I thought we could reasonably claim to have an alternative to the university. We held a conference showing that on 80 topics process thinkers were working at the cutting edge, dealing with their assumptions. I thought we could also show that what we offered was urgently needed for practical purposes as well as theoretical.

In the following five years, the urgency of change became more widely manifest. Society needed to move away from the value free compartmentalized academic disciplines to a passionately committed holistic vision of the world we need to create. This could happen only with the change of key assumptions offered by process philosophy. Our conference had shown we were ready to help, but the number (outside of China) who cared enough to look were in the thousands.

Nevertheless, we made real progress toward a public role. Process organizations began working with cities, counties, and even states. Locally they gained public visibility and their contributions have been appreciated. But in the national public arena, we remained largely invisible and unheard. Despite our still marginal status, can we help? Can we reach millions? That possibility may be emerging as the global crisis forces itself on the world’s attention. Many of us feel that the cultural climate is changing

dramatically, and that many more people are ready to hear what we have to offer if we find ways of getting the ideas to them. This is the threshold that we now may have the opportunity to cross.

Our chances of crossing may be increased if many of us working in different fields and in diverse ways work together as one community to make the needed changes. That is why I have planned with the heads of major American process organizations a mini conference to help us shift our thinking and perhaps our priorities in ways that increase chances of success. First, we will hear from leaders of four process organizations. What have they achieved in the last five years? In my view, quite a lot. I think we have become ready for “the big time.” Is “the big time” ready for us? We will hear from astute observers in ten fields whether the time for process thought has come.

We’ll begin with philosophy. In recent years it has certainly improved on the European continent. In the non-academic community of thinkers, it has improved in the United States. Even the American philosophical guilds are more open to ideas important to process thought. Can we hope for a major breakthrough in the U.S.?

 I propose that we hear about the thinking of church people, and here I consider the success of Tom Oord’s “God Can’t” as a real breakthrough. We also need to hear from those with spiritual interests separate from the Christian churches. Finally, among liberal religious thinkers who are interested in interfaith, political, and cultural matters, Jay McDaniel will tell us where process thought stands.

The physical sciences have an immense influence on our world view. They contribute especially to cosmology. Whitehead thought the time had come for a changed science and cosmology. The scientific guilds have not changed, but their limitations have become more apparent. Might they shift from substances to events? Is there anything the process community can do to increase the chances of change? Matthew Segall will share his expectations.

The survival of whole populations depends on the products of agriculture. The modernization of agriculture has been a catastrophe. Awareness of the destructiveness of factory farming and raising animals for meat has increased. Interest in regenerative farming has increased. Process thought can undergird this interest philosophically. Has the time come to show the importance of how we think for what we eat?

Most Americans are not, today, enthusiastic about the American or the global economy. Some of them recognize that the problems are partly rooted in the dominant economic theories. Although academic economics still largely supports the current neoliberal economy, that concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, there is much greater openness to call for changes that were barely discussable in the past. Can we hope for an economics that strengthens local communities?

Our minds are largely shaped by our many years in schools. Schooling has been shaped by modern beliefs such as the Kantian separation of facts and values. Dissatisfaction with the results increases. Is there a chance for a different kind of education oriented to the needs of students and of the world?

For generations young people have known that collective human behavior has been unsustainable. But more important for them has been doing well in the present context. The present young adult generation seems to be aware that it is their future that is at stake. Their commitment to change seems deeply rooted. Can process thinkers form an alliance with this community of shared concern?

We will conclude by considering quite directly the question of access to the determinative media. Even if there is change, those who control the media may contain by excluding it from widespread knowledge. Might process thought circumvent this in some way? The news that Philip Clayton’s ECI had partnered with a major organization gives promise that the idea, and eve the content, of ecological civilization may get a wide public hearing. If the news is good on many of these fronts, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to find new ways to spread the word. To conclude the conference, we will break up into smaller groups to start the conversation about how in any and all these fields to reach a much larger audience. The goal is to arouse enough people that politicians will pay attention. In conclusion, I will mention three possible projects that might help us reach more people.

We might form alliances with other organizations that are already contributing to that goal in ways we are not. This could make clear that ecological civilization is an inclusive vision of the world we need. It would certainly not be racist or sexist, but other organizations are doing much more on those fronts than are we. We think all humans should have rights, but we may be critical of the excessively individualist emphasis. Is there an organization working for individual rights that recognizes the importance of community? We certainly favor peace, and we can probably find a peace organization that is very congenial to our understanding of ecological civilization.

I have been thinking for some time about a website that invited wide participation in proposing how ecological civilization would differ from modernity: a kind of Wikipedia of ecological civilization.

Universities may be in a vulnerable situation and willing to consider a change in curriculum. Some of them may consider that the global crisis is so serious that they should allow it to affect what they teach and the way they teach it. There have been encouraging developments at Willamette and LaVerne. We might work together to persuade other universities to experiment. We think there are students who would be attracted to a university that was working to save the world and to prepare students to take part.

Our meeting will be on Saturday, October 31, from 9 to 12. Please join us. We are called to do what we can to save the world. Maybe, at last, the thinking we have done about this will capture the imagination of millions and make a real contribution to radical change of collective behavior. It’s worth trying.

- John Cobb

* * * * * * * * *

Second Letter from John Cobb Conference

PROCESS THOUGHT AT A NEW THRESHOLD

https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#

Date: October 31, 2020

Time: 9 am to 12 noon

ZOOM Meeting

An Invitation from John Cobb

Dear Fellow Members of the Process Movement,

I hope that you have all received and read my earlier letter about a conference on preparing ourselves to respond to a new openness to process ideas and especially the idea of ecological civilization. I hope that many of you have reserved the time, October 31, 2020, from 9am to 12pm. I am writing now with a few more details about the program, and am attaching a schedule.

The purpose is to get many of us thinking about how to get the attention of a much wider public, and to communicate the most relevant and urgent ideas to it. I speak of urgency because of my judgment that the time that changing policies will help very much is short. I encourage you to listen to Pope Francis’ recent Ted talk. I am very grateful that, under the rubric of “integral ecology,” he shares our concern for transforming society and our sense of urgency. What is most hopeful is that he already addresses the people of the world.

We are experiencing a mild foretaste of an ever-worsening future unless there are profound changes. The process community has been reflecting about the needed changes longer than any other. We believe that, if we are heard, we can help, and there may be a real chance of being heard. Philip Clayton has co-edited an important new book called The New Possible, a title that would have worked for this conference. Zack Walsh told us in our weekly gathering with friends of the Institute that his colleagues in Silicon Valley are influenced by process-relational thinking and know that we must shift in that direction. But unless we use the new opportunity wisely, the door will slam shut. Hence, the urgency!

The most important part of the conference will be the breakout groups at the end. We hope they will begin the conversation about what we need to do, and that all of us will continue that conversation and find ways to implement our creative ideas. One realistic topic for discussion is whether the process community should seek to work together or any one project.

Actually, the conversation is already beginning. Andrew Schwartz wrote me that a correspondent made the point that to influence most people in any topic in which they are not specialists, the point must be made in a single step. Speaking for myself, I find that hard. Process thinking believes that everything is connected and that, therefore, all adequate explanations are complex. But Andrew is right that we must learn how to make crucial points simply and well.

For example, a crucial need is to shift from a global economy to local ones. I have been making that point since the eighties, but I have made it as part of complex proposals for reorganizing society. Recently the idea of a local economy has caught on. The leader of this very promising movement is Helena NorbertHodge.

The way she promotes it, as in the excellent film, “The Economics of Happiness,” leaves many questions unanswered. But in its simple presentation, it is having an influence on the way cities think of their economy. Of course, actual efforts to localize will bring many issues to the foreground, and we may be able to help. But simplifying is required in order to get cities to ask those questions. I must learn new skills, and I do not think I am alone, especially among academics. We have ten people who have agreed to lead or facilitate discussion after the presentations. In my previous letter I briefly described some possible projects. The purpose of including this was to stimulate imagination, not to gain priority for these proposals. Please begin thinking now. Then come and get a clearer idea of what we are already doing and what the openings seem to be in diverse fields. Be prepared to think boldly, as if life depends on you. Perhaps it does.

- John B. Cobb, Jr.

A Process-Based Reading of the Living God and His Word

 

A Process-Based Reading of the Living God and His Word

I woke up today still burdened by a subject I'm not sure how to approach. My burden is that I cannot get past the idea of how many in the church, including the church itself, is reading the bible heretically.

Reading the bible plainly (or literally) has caused a lot of unloving words and deeds to be done in the name of the God of Love. Reading the bible spiritually (metaphorically or allegorically) is also unhelpful in that it gets away from the historical nature of God's revelation being communicated to ancient peoples many years ago.

Comparative literary analysis has been a large help when approaching the bible from a historical, grammatical, and contextual point of study. But it also neglects reading the bible from an evolving sociological, psychological, and philosophical point of study (or, paradigms; sic, sociological frames of context).

These last three areas especially have caused theologians and philosophers to question how we are reading the bible today. The question before us then is this:

"Is God's revelation always a product of being in a relationship with the God of the universe? Or did God speak once, and we are left alone with only the bible as God's spokeman?"

The short answer is yes. The bible is not God's only means of revelation, but that God is always present and communicating with us through His Spirit as individuals, communities, and societies.

More so, because of humanity's long histories of societal experience we have been evolving in our generations and civilizations in our attitudes of love, responsibility, and identity of ourselves in relation to each other, the world at large, and to very creation itself.

Is the Bible Relevant?

My first burden is that our 21st century ideas of society will not be found in civilizations thousands of years before us. Yes, smatterings of them, but not in any cohesive, formulated, or directional way. The beauty of process-based cultural history is that each succeeding generation and regional cultural has its own unique beliefs and identities. We learn from one another when we study the past as well as study the present. But we cannot expect to find any one generation or culture to have lived and thought "perfect lives and perfect thoughts". It’s never been done and never will be done. Not even in the bible. That is to say, the bible is a time-dated study of ancient cultural beliefs which have some pertinence today and some not (cultural dress, foods, practices, and idiom for one).

Saying this means that in a process-based world its very nature is one of evolving from one moment to the next. This was true for bible people then and cultures of their time even as it is true for us now in our generations and varied histories. We are always evolving as a creation; always, concrecsing forwards (growing, moving uniquely forwards). It may be two steps forwards and one step backwards; it may be with interation, interruption and discontinuity; it may be with harm and death; but it always forwards on a path of survival, wellbeing, and restorative livelihood.

We live in a processed based world. A world God inhabits and has given His essence too. Not only by His design but created from God's Essence. Which is why creation is always moving forwards restlessly, generatively. And as it moves forward it restores, it creates opportunities for goodness and wellbeing, it seeks for peace, harmony, and balance. Evolution in its essence is a process filled with God Himself. Its nature can be fierce and wonderful, unique and uniquely in motion, resplendent and dangerous, in the exercise of its God-given freedom.

Saying this means for me that those oral transcribers who wrote down the legends of the bible had their own beliefs and societal standards even as the oral histories of the originators had their own beliefs and cultural worldviews. But being time-bound, whether Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the Judges, Kings, and Prophets, or the generations after them writing and re-writing down those stories, none of those historical events and personages could escape their own or, their society's, evolving thoughts and ideas about God, themselves, and their place and purpose in this life.

How Are We to Read the Bible?

Which brings me back to my burden. Is the bible written down perfectly? Or was it meant as a starting point for communication between God and man? If we take the "magic" out of the transmission process where traditional systematics teach that God wrote the bible ONCE AND FOR ALL using men and women to communicate His revealed Word, then we are left with a God using time-bound evolving culture's to communicate an early expressive theology that ended with its expression.

An earlier theology which wasn't intended to be complete nor completed when speaking of an infinitely evolving God amid an evolving, dynamic creation. I say an "evolving" God because of His experience with an evolving creation. God's experience with creation is moment-by-moment just as creation experiences itself. And I like the word infinite in that it speaks more fully of a process-based creation, if not of God Himself as He is in eternal process with creation as its Creator.

Is it correct then to state the bible to be a record of an earlier, ancient theology serving as a means to begin collectively thinking about God and learning to listen to Him through His Spirit? If so, then the bible isn't fully as evolved in its theology as we would like to think of it as. And if not, then we must admit the bible's theology is historically bound by its theologies and philosophies of its earlier cultures.

This seems a radical proposition but perhaps we shouldn't regard the bible as the once-and-for-all definite word of God. When we have its follows have committed some very un-godlike thinking and actions in their day. A processed-based reading of the bible would regard it as a product of its times and a beginning point for discussion re ethics, morality, and even the atonement of God through Jesus.

So then, how are we to be guided by the bible if we cannot be guided by its stories and illustrations? Might I simply suggest we be guided by the Author of the bible Himself? By Jesus and His words and deeds? By the idea of God's love and what it means to be loving?

If so, then when reading of the violence of Israel towards its neighbors in the Old Testament, or the violence at the end of the world as perceived by five hundred years of speculative eschatologists of the time (from the third century BC to the second century AD) may not be what God is intending. Violence is never love. And preaching a God of violence is antithetical to God's essence (nature) as a God of love. But isn't God a God of judgment? Hmmm, let's discuss that next....

Sin and Evil

Holding the belief that God is in control of everything may have been how one thought of God in ancient times but after centuries and centuries of sin and evil one can say in the affirmative that God is not in control of everything. In the Old Testament I read again and again the sentiment by the biblical ancients that if God is God then He is always in control. Thinking through in the New Testament of Jesus' words and His sentiments on this subject of God being in control we Jesus' word to be a bit more nuanced yet those who later wrote down His words in the early church - as well as the apostles' revelations - came back to their own societal beliefs and restrictions claiming a controlling God.

Since the bible is a product of its historical generations I wouldn't expect NOT to see these sentiments. It is exactly what I expect to find - that the OT and NT are fully consistent in speaking of God as a controlling God of historical events and coming futures. This is borne out by the biblical text as by product of its ancient transcribers. And yet, God is not a controlling God. Why is this? Let me suggest a couple of ideas....

Because God gave to man freewill it is implicit that with freewill comes an undetermined future. Each are part-and-parcel of the other being divine gifts granted creation. To say God is in "control" is not necessarily the best word to use then - even though the sentiment wishes to give the God of creation and of its salvation His rightful place of glory and honor. The problem of theodicy - that is of sin and evil - in a free willed world can be stated immediately that by its nature God cannot be in control. We are using the wrong word to express how we think of God's sovereignty.

Lately, the problem of theodicy is being answered in redirecting the idea of theodicy back upon what a God of love would do when creating a free willed creation. Originally I thought God "chose" to give man freewill but, I've learned since then that creational freewill originated because of God's love. Love is not a choice. In its essence divine love means the ability to choose as well as to live in an open, undetermined future.

ORPT

Thus, the Arminian-based (sic, Wesleyan) idea of an "Open and Relational (Process-based) Theology" has been born to answer the problem of theodicy. ORPT states God is fully sovereign but not in control of creation. Rather, God is a fully-pledge participant with creation in its direction, evolvement, and fulfillment. Though God is not in control of indeterminate, freewill event and future, God is fully imbued within creational structures by gifting creation with His Essence, His Spirit if you will, which flows through all things.

That sin and evil are is because they are the other half of the coin of goodness and love. This defines freewill. The choice between good and evil. Creation is both a product of good and evil even as it struggles against it to find its fulfillment in obedience and submission to its essence. That essence being of course the essence of God. It is no mystery to see this eternal struggle in the evolution not only of creation but in humanity's society evolution to find goodness, beauty, and love in this world. As long as creation exists so too will this titanic struggle continue.

Given this, when re-reading of the bible's ancient cultural dispositions we see that earlier generations really had a difficult time in describing how God is God and yet not in control of everything. the Process philosopher and theologian will say that this is not a problem. God is in control but in a different kind of way. God's control is one which releases creation to become what it was made to become. Who empowers creation to overcome sin and evil? To become that which is kind and loving, good and holy. God doesn't "force" a free willed creation to become this, God "assists" a free willed creation in becoming what it was made for; that is, for unbounded fellowship with itself and with its God.

Again, finding these sentiments in the bible can be found, it’s just that those oral legends and transcribed records believed in theological ideas of a "controlling God". The ancients did not have the many-centuries "backwards" look we have today of wars, revolution, societal experiments, enlightenment, dis-enlightenment, and so forth. Our backwards look gives us the advantage to speak of God in a different way than earlier, evolving generations were able to think of God. But again, in a process world, nothing is static, not even our beliefs.

Conclusion

Is it fully allowable then that God may be perceived as speaking to us through our own generations, commentaries, and preaching? Sure, why not? God is always communication to creation. To the trees, rocks, wind, earth, moon, and stars. Why not then mankind?

How God spoke and was perceived by the ancients is no less different in our generations today. God's bible is in the people who speak for God, who disagree with heretical church sentiments and beliefs, who write, who author, who reflect philosophically on God and consider what our scientific and academic discoveries are telling us about God today.

I would fully expect an "incomprehensible" God to be an evolving story of "comprehensibility." That is, God began with ancient primal man in his thoughts who thought "just maybe, there was a God, perhaps a God beyond all other Gods" (read James A. Michener's book, The Source). From there, the "story of God" has been evolving... even unto this day.

All that can be said of a God of love and salvation can never be said in several generations, not even across many generations. The Story of God is an evolving story of enlargement, beauty, holism, and grandness. I, for one, am not surprised that what I thought I knew about God continues to surprise me. Surprise me in that God continues to become larger than the God I thought I knew and been taught to know by wise and holy men and women.

The bible of common men and women was becoming a collection of narratives of holy-and-unholy men-and-women learning who God is in their lives. (1) This God is always in the state of revealing Himself beyond our imaginations. (2) That the bible is a product of its times, albeit many, many centuries earlier. But (3) when its stories ended its lessons did not. The bible is being written and re-written by the philosophers and theologians of every century. Its lessons are being written upon our heart by the Spirit of God breathing into our imaginations what a God of love means to the generations of today.

This God of the bible is not static. God is a "living, breathing, relational cosmic entity" who wishes to be in a living relationship with us as we face an open future of good and bad.

Our story is God's story even as God's story can be our story. The Spirit presence and relationship we have with the divine is manifold: From a simple walk on the beach to a walk on the moon; from beholding the wonder of our firstborn to the wonder we find in the books of the academics; from sliding into Homeplate without a prayer of a chance of making it, to looking up at the twinkling stars far above.

The Wonder of God is everywhere, and we shouldn't be surprised not to hear His Voice upon the deeps of heavy hearts awashed the sins and evils of the day. A God who speaks against the unfairness and injustice of society being committed towards each other. Who speaks through its newspapers, through podcasts, even through social media, challenging hearts, motives, and purposes. The bible is being rewritten afresh upon the hearts of God's people speaking out against the ill we are doing to God's Self, His love, His salvation, to one another, and to His creation.

The bible is every bit of our experience today even as God was back then in the ancient's lives. We may think of the bible as a one-time revelation - or as a series of one-time revelations - but what if it was marking the "officious" beginning of God speaking to mankind all the time, in every way possible?

What if the bible is not a dead thing but an expanding compendium reaching beyond old, dead-and-gone, cultural thinking of God, to the best of humanity's thoughts, discoveries, and deeds of God? That instead of thinking of the bible in literal ways as a collection of stories time-bound and time-dated in its theologies, that instead we might consider the bible's lessons as the first steps of humanity towards understanding and developing Christ-centered theologies emphasizing God's love and His work of redemption throughout the concourses of humanity's livelihoods?

God has not ceased speaking. God is speaking everywhere and in every way. Through every culture, every generation, and every soul burdened to resist evil and speak for right and truth. Do not think only one agency, the church, may speak for God. When such agencies lose their way, God finds the rocks of this world to speak out His Word like the turbulent winds sent across the treetops. Words of weight and infinite wisdom. 

God raises up babies from carpenter's cradles to challenge the establishment. From raises up the cries of the Church Fathers, the burdens of missionaries, revolutionaries, scientists, novelists, poets, and orators. God raises up the children of the next generation to re-right the lostness of their parent's generations. To stand against unrighteousness and war. To seek revolutionary ways to not lose this earth to the plagues we have unleashed upon it. God's prophets and disciples of this world is the now generation willing to envision a God who is beyond our imaginations. A God whose mystery continues to amaze us as we study His heavens, His creation, one another, and the wisdom of the ages.

Be amazed. God speaks today!

R.E. Slater
October 21, 2020

I wrote a helpful parallel article some months later

which may be pertinent to the discussion here:

Integral Hermeneutics ala

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems:

The Post-Structuralism of the

Hermeneutics of Belief or Suspicion