Process Theology: a critique

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—

‘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_/