On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:36:04 CST "Scott Wendorf" <wendorf@hotmail.com>
writes:
> I like the past few posts. They are refreshingly different and seem
> to have
> brought in some different voices from amongst us. Not to interrupt
> this
> flow, but I was wondering: Does anyone have a good "nutshell"
> definition of
> process theology, along with the main objections to it? I saw the
> term used
> in Ted Davis' essay, and at first somewhat smugly assumed that I
> knew what
> it meant, then had to admit to myself that I didn't!
> ______________________________________________________
>
Process theology is a view that goes back to Alfred North Whitehead,
especially _Process and Reality_ (1929). There are also elements of it in
_Adventures of Ideas_ (1933), especially the middle chapters. It's been
many years since I studied him, but he seems to think that he has dealt
with the matter of God's immanence in contrast to the orthodox emphasis
on transcendence. Adherents to this view hold that it also solves the
problem of human freedom.
The root of the system is a finite deity, one which is immanent, giving a
form of pantheism, technically called panentheism, with at least some
elements of personalityt ascribed to it. This deity is developing along
with the material universe. Being more encompassing, it knows more about
the universe than we do and so can better predict the future, but it is
at the mercy of events that it did not accurately anticipate. So we have
to hope that this deity will not succumb with its universe to
catastrophic events that it could not foresee and does not have the power
to control. This lack of foresight is held to be the foundation of human
freedom, on the mistaken notion that no one can fully predict what he
does not determine. In other words, adherents to process theology have
constructed a god in their own image, something which I class as
idolatry. I contend that it is not necessary to produce a graven image to
have an idol to worship.
I haven't had enough interest in process theology to try to find out how
they accommodate the Big Bang. I suspect that it must involve the
self-creation of their deity as it produces the universe. But I think, to
make things consistent, they should take the Indian route and make Brahma
eternal. But, what little contact I have had with adherents leads me to
expect obfuscation of such matters.
Since the Society of Christian Philosophers has a goodly proportion of
process theologians, perhaps some of the brethren at Calvin, who are
active in the organizaztion, could respond more accurately and concisely.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 14:26:44 EST