dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
.........................
> 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.
An overestimate of one's philosophy can indeed result in creating a God in our
own image, & some process theologians are guilty of that. So are some philosophers who
revere the immutable, impassible, "simple" &c God of classical western philosophy,
thinking that that is the biblical God. It isn't. A theology which wants to take the
cross seriously as the basis of its knowledge of God cannot accept such assumptions.
In process thought God is "in process" with the world, fundamentally related
to the world & affected by what happens. God is not "omnipotent" (in the classical
sense of doing everything that happens in the world) but at each actual occasion "lures"
the world toward its best possible future. In process thought God does not create the
world _ex nihilo_ but one must always speak (to use the title of John Cobb's book which
is perhaps the best intro to these ideas) of _God and the World_.
The problem with process thought is NOT its claim that one must speak of the
temporality of God. That has also been a theme of much of the work that has been done
in the revival of Christian trinitarian theology in the past half century. One of the
basic problems of process thought is that it isn't easy to speak of its God in
trinitarian terms. In process though there are 2 "natures" of God, the primordial and
the consequent, and it's hard to speak about this in terms of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Another problem is that while the picture of Jesus in the gospels is an
important influence on Whitehead, the passion of Christ becomes simply one example of
God's suffering with the world rather than a unique act of God.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 16:35:28 EST