Process Theology
Process theology is not
monolithic. It has fundamental nuances. Therefore, let us begin with some
fundamental principles of process theology. First of all, in process theology
God is only one among many. So, let us consider the essence of the one among
the many. This one, whom process theologians call God or the One, meaning the
primary one, but not in the sense of primordial, as we generally think of
primordial. God, in their though process is really more of an agent of purpose,
than a conscious personate and as such plays the part of the classical God; although, consciously unaware of the role played. The
process theologian actually ‘believes that God—this essence of the one, simply provides
the form and energy which is necessary to structure the cosmos as we now
experience it. In other words, this one provides a suggestive purpose, a
suggested design through which the chaos of the many may choose to flow in
order to provide content or perceivable structure. This is not to say that
chaos will take that route—there is no compulsion there; however, it does so
randomly in sufficient quality to provide a teleological stability to all that
is unified.
Thus, we are still left with the age-old
dilemma of what came first: the chicken or the egg. God (the One) being the
chicken and cosmos (the many) the egg. Nonetheless, if we are to understand
process theology the concept of both existing from everlasting to everlasting
must become the foundational principle. So, in this scenario very little
distinction if any is made between the One and the many from a temporal
standpoint except that there is a constant flux of the One and the many interacting
and processing into an everlasting directive purpose towards the intentions of
the One.
The whole concept is similar to
Plato’s Demiurge in that the One and the many have always been interacting to
process to the point of the contemporarily of the moment—the eternal now, as
some would say; however, for the process theologian to admit that there is an
eternal now, he or she must admit that there was a time in which now’s now did
not exist, thus in retrospect as long as there is a temporal gap between what
was and what is, then what was, just as what is, must have had a beginning.
Because, as has been often stated to fathom an endless regress is unimaginable.
It is counter intuitive.
Naturally, this conclusion is a Thomist
postulate, but nonetheless, a postulate that must be solved unless we are
willing to sacrifice all intuitive logic. Nonetheless, this school of process
thought postulates God as a purposeful agent in an ever-evolving monistic catalytism. God in this postulate is reduced to a
nebulous metaphysical agent analogous to the human mind in its relationship to the
body.[i] So,
it is best to consider this module as a quasi-monism—that is, God is all and in
all. The primary distinguishing factor in this monistic process is one of an intellectual
milieu and framework in which to conceptualize.
Another, model is more akin to
pantheism —that is a nebulous essence that more closely resembles God (the
essence) as the architect of creation, but nonetheless who is intricately
linked to the catalysis as a telos of innate persuasive christological love,
which gives a creative purposeful design to all that is. God, in this sense,
provides the teleological form that reality takes. Consequently, a catalyst of
this sort clouds any distinct Godlike attribution characteristically thought of
as God in the classical sense of the word— thus God is in all metaphysically, but
not in a scriptural sense (Ephesians 4:6).
Creation, again in this scenario,
is everlasting as opposed to eternal, and creation is the ebb and flow milieu
in which God as teleological love operates as an integrated catalytistic agent
to bring about purposeful order—that is, to use christianese, to bring about
the pleasure of His good will (Philippians 2:13). God, therefore, in this
cosmic scenario, is the cosmic persuader rather than King and Sovereign Lord
over all creation. Nevertheless, God as a fundamental ingredient of persuasive
love in this nebulous entity is however subject to change. Thus, this novelty
they call God is part of the everlasting woof and warp of creation and is
creator only in the sense of providing a catalytic agent for change. Simply
put, God along with the stuff of nature is eternal and discernable in the
process of change. There is, therefore, no metaphysics, only physic in the
proper sense of the words. One may not see God, as one may not see an atom, but
phenomenological change suggests one.
God is, therefore, to their way
of thinking, is part of the universe—the world, and all that is. So, in this
theological consequence God needs creation, as much as creation needs Him—that
is, creation needs the wooing of love, and love needs the milieu of the
fluctuating cosmos to lure creation into perfection. Love is, therefore, the
cosmic glue that keeps the cosmos from disintegrating into chaos. As the world
is in the process of changing, so God is along with the world in the process of
changing, and as such also in the process of becoming all that he can be.
God, in this motif, acts and
reacts to cosmic realities—thus, he is ontologically part of the on-going
process of becoming the potentialities of his evolutionary intentions, thus
creation is a temporal function of a transitory event. As odd as that may seem
to the classical theologian, it is none-the-less, in the mind of the advocate
of process theology a transitory evident reality.
To further, this line of thought,
to some Process theologians, God has two opposing poles: A primordial pole,
which is eternal and unchanging, and not part of the novelty of this world, and
the other a consequential pole that is temporal, changing, and of this world.
God in that sense is the grid through which the universe flows to give it
purpose and form. God is not always successful, however, in this deistic model
but nonetheless necessary if we are to expect anything but chaos.
The primordial pole is what God could be, or what his
potential is. Thus, the consequent pole is what God is at this very moment. This
means that God is not perfect, and in order for him to become perfect he needs cosmic
participation. Because God is limited within his consequent pole, he is not
omnipotent (he does not know everything—since everything does not yet exist; he
can only postulate future reality). Thus, he cannot control evil and cannot
guarantee that it will ever be conquered. Once again, this leaves God at the caprice
of the chaotic as yet ununified and/or incomplete cosmos to help him process
his persuasive creative powers. This process of teleological unification is
best labeled as love in their lexicon and is best understood in classical
theology as an artistic whole.
Unfortunately, in my opinion,
love is never clearly defined in process theology—it is the elusive good that
is ever escaping, always morphing into an ill-defined category that only
satisfies the arbitrary assertion or aesthetic taste of the observer as far as
ethics and morality is concerned. That being the case, absolutes are out the
window, subjective opinion moves in and the structure of this catalytic
interior is never the same for any two observers. God, morals, everything quasi-ethereal
or spiritual is in a constant cosmic reflux, folding and enveloping upon itself
in an everlasting evolutionary telos of love that recycles and hopefully morphs
the cosmic stuff which we think of as reality into christological-perfection.
It is not as if the world or cosmos gets better, it simply ideally becomes more
compatible with the realities at any given moment. It is therefore, at it’s
best simply a purposeful adjustment to contemporaneity.
Reason most definitely reigns;
but it is an intuitive reason that is based on experience and that which is
assumed to be in synch with creative reality. Although, I have not read it
anywhere that I can think of, it seems to me that the moral reality of which
they speak is more akin to the Maslovian hierarchy of human needs than it is to
the moral demands of Scripture. It is survival of the fittest and Maslow’s
model fits the bill in that case—particularly if the model is designed to
preserve the evolutionary process of the survival of the fittest. Ethics,
however, in process theology is another subject for another time.
In the simplest of terms, God is
a process that is both passive and active: active in the sense of the principle
of a persuasive lure; and, yet, impassive in the sense of influence. That
luring impassionability is best understood as an aesthetic effect –that is the
luring effect of the beauty of his holiness. Beauty has in the mind of the
process theologian the telos of order, and thus creation strives to accommodate
that structure. Thus, God is at any given moment caught in an everlasting drama
of what was, is, and is yet to come. Always changing; yet ideally never without
purpose. His only real power is in the power of his attractiveness. God’s
authority rest entirely on the persuasive principle of his undaunting love;
thus, potentially, at all times, he is a victim in the sense that he has no
choice but to accept the fact and consequence of each and every temporal circumstance.
Dig as deeply as you might into that thought pattern and to my mind it is
impossible to find either a will or wisdom or any other conative system that
can make a difference in the outcome.
One of the problems, among
others, as I have previously mentioned, is that this love is never profoundly
described—it is always the elusive “Eros of the universe (Whitehead);” or at
best the “harmonization of all possibilities (Suchochki).” The motivating
“agape/ἀγάπη” love of Scripture is far too passionate for thoughtful
consideration. Cognitively, God is therefore always reduced to a principle;
never elevated to a person. He is therefore mindless, uncaring, the ultimate
delight of the Deist, perhaps, but never the compassionate One of Scripture.
Process Theology vis-à-vis the Trinity
As it can be imagined, classical
Trinitarianism has no place in Process Theology. Jesus at best is an ongoing
ever evolving Christological principle that reached a temporal pinnacle in
Jesus of Nazarene who exemplified a paradigmic and symbolic show of the godly
essence of love—a creative urge, a surge of irresistible attraction of an
irrefutable Logos. I use the adjective “irrefutable” since love which is intrinsically
infused in the Logos concept is never satisfactorily defined to an unbiased
intellect—at least not my intellect.
Jesus, on surface, is not, in
Process thinking, unique to our generation, since he does not speak to our
culture which has evolved from the Palestinian Judeo culture of his. This is
keeping with the philosophical position that each generation (actually, each
moment) in history defines at its best the condition of the pure Logos—urges
and surges as well. I say, “urges and surges,” because to the Process thinker
God alone does not just shape creation, but creation shapes God—the only
abiding essence is, of course, this ill-defined love of which they speak.
To digress slightly, it must be
understood that although Process Theologians have neglected this task—that is
to define love; it is not to say, however, that they have not tried to
conceptualize love. Love is at best, ‘the essence of beauty,’ ‘a telos of
purpose,’ ‘an aesthetic sense of awesomeness;’ statically flexible but never
emotive. Static in the sense that it is structured, flexible in the sense that it
rises to the occasion. A paradox in motion, you might say. Such is the
foolishness of process theology, in my opinion.
Also, I must admit that I find it strange that some self-identified Christian theologians embrace process theology when the founding philosophical guru—A. N. Whitehead can state without reservation that—
I am sorry, but to put God on the same level as the most trivial puff of existence in far-off empty space stretches my credulity far too much to ever entertain such a thought as part of my foundational belief system.
I wish I could give them a better scorecard, but I simply cannot.
‘Actual entities’ — also termed ‘actual occasions’ — are the final real things of which the world is made up. There is no going behind actual entities to find anything more real. They differ among themselves: God is an actual entity, and so is the most trivial puff of existence in far-off empty space. But, though there are gradations of importance, and diversities of function, yet in the principles which actuality exemplifies all are on the same level. The final facts are, all alike, actual entities; and these actual entities are drops of experience, complex and interdependent. — Process and Reality, An Essay in Cosmology 27f.
I am sorry, but to put God on the same level as the most trivial puff of existence in far-off empty space stretches my credulity far too much to ever entertain such a thought as part of my foundational belief system.
I wish I could give them a better scorecard, but I simply cannot.
[i]
Charles Hartshorne Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (Chicago:
Willlett, Clark, & Co., 1941) pp. 174-211.
Take care, and remember He cares for you!
JimR_/
