Process Theology: Does God Change? Research Paper Example

There are many references to Process Theology on the Web, and many books on the subject to be found in libraries. There are also references to Process Philosophy. The two are not synonymous, strictly considered. Alfred North Whitehead is understood to be the source of the philosophy and the source for the consequent spread (and perhaps popularity of) the theology, with the classical sources of both ideas being given due mention. I will not restrict this essay to Whitehead’s philosophy alone, but rather attempt to show that Process Theology and the matter of a changing God is a question of fundamental theological importance specifically for Judeo-Christians, albeit of limited interest among non-theologians.

What is it?

A definition is in order. What exactly is Process Theology? For reasons of space I will limit myself to the one I think most likely to be accepted with the least reservations, and then move on: process theologies (there are different schools of thought) posit a God who is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. It is a belief that God and the universe are always becoming rather than already being, that God is an integral part of that entire dynamic, physical and social process of existence, but does not — and (critically) cannot — control every facet of that existence. God is a part of, and one with, the ever-changing material universe but is no a bar to the exercise of free will by individuals within that material universe. He can persuade us to worship him, but will not coerce us through fear. Both good and evil are possible, indeed inevitable. Within the accepted formal confines of this debate, the only alternative is a static, immutable, transcendently aloof, uninvolved, all-knowing, and all-powerful God who foresees and knows all but takes no effective interest whatsoever in any of it.¹

Who Cares?

The first and most obvious observation to make about this kind of theological dispute is that only those who believe in God, and only those who believe in the right kind of God, can consider the question a matter of any importance. Atheists would have to excuse themselves from directly participating in the discussion, although an atheist could conceivably read and grade this essay without any sense of internal philosophical contradiction. Having made that qualification, we may ask if there are any others who would bow out as well, such as Muslims. Regarding Islam and process theologies, one reference states authoritatively that the two are in conflict, as God is knowable only through the revelations of its prophet, Mohammed.² That same logic would appear to eliminate Catholics³ and no doubt other fundamentalist-leaning Christian sects as well. And indeed one might ask how it couldn’t affect them. If God can only be known through revelation, and revelation does not include anything that could be described as receptive to a process theology, then adherents to those kinds of faith cannot take part in the debate about God and the various process theologies. For such orthodox believers, the debate must first be about whether their own revelations are in any important way open to theological speculations of this kind. For example, some Jewish theologians embrace the a process-suffused God both in principle and for tradition, pointing out that the concept of omnipotence doesn’t appear in the Torah, nor the writings of the Jewish prophets, nor in the Talmud.⁴

As for pantheism, if we can credit The New Oxford Dictionary of English⁵ (and repeated in Wikipedia), pantheism is the view that “the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.” Since process theology generally takes the view that God is a part of the physical universe, both shaped by and a part of it, one might take the pantheists as being the first adherents of a kind of process theology, and perhaps they were. Bernard Loomer, one of the leading exponents of the formal Process Theology, rejected Whitehead’s philosophy of God in favor of pantheism.⁶ But in spite of his conversion there is no general acceptance of pantheists into the school of process.⁷ We may reasonably count the pantheists out.

Polytheists, like the atheists, would seem to be disqualified by definition, because the question is does God change?, not do Gods change? But here we do encounter an interesting potential paradox. The single transcendent God I’ve described, looking at humanity with distance and detachment, could surely only conclude that humanity itself is polytheistic. That is, just as an individual may worship many local gods as genuine entities, so has humanity as a whole, over time, worshiped many different monotheistic Gods, transcendent or not, with each sect denying or ignoring others’ own single God. But be that as it may, doing an online search for “gods” draws a blank in the literature of Process Theology. It is evidently a matter for monotheists only (at least as it is conventionally understood). At this point, one may well ask how is the question of a changeable God important, when so many people are disqualified from asking it?

Why Care?

We may find the answer in Whitehead’s Process and Reality, published in 1929. In it, Whitehead states: The notion of God as the ‘unmoved mover’ is derived from Aristotle, at least so far as Western thought is concerned. The notion of God as ‘eminently real’ is a favourite doctrine of Christian theology. The combination of the two into the doctrine of an aboriginal, eminently real, transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys, is the fallacy which has infused tragedy into the histories of Christianity and of Mahometanism. Process theologies may be seen as attempts to rectify that tragedy by creating a modern Christian theological doctrine that posits a God with limited power. I specify a modern Christian doctrine because, as the Jewish theologians make clear, the belief in a limited God is in fact deeply traditional in their own faith (even as many Jewish theologians have themselves subscribed to an all-powerful Yahweh).  In other words, Process Theology is not an attempt to create a new Christian God in a new Christian religion but to rectify a long-standing doctrinal mistake in Christianity (and, by implication, in the “Mohametanism” cited by Whitehead). Towards this end, Christian process-theologians seem willing to deemphasize the Trinity. This is not only a proactive effort. It is reactive as well, being a response to the growing impact of Pentecostal, charismatic, and progressive movements.⁸ Bringing God back to his fallible and imperfect Hebrew Bible roots makes free will an arguably liberating doctrinal tenet of faith because a limited but morally persuasive God comes at the expense of an amoral all-powerful God. So the importance of process theologies is that it permits our original question to be rephrased as follows: Does the Judeo-Christian God change? To the extent that the answer is Yes, a changing God, inseparable from the process of forever becoming in the changing universe, gains a competitive edge over monotheistic Gods that are static, ever-present and never changing, that know in advance of evil and brook it on a large and small scale with equally magisterial and invisible indifference, and whom schoolchildren are paradoxically taught to “love” and definitely to fear.

A Futile Effort?

One question central to this whole discussion is whether these kinds of doctrinal issues, disputes, and contradictions can ever really be resolved, and just how worthwhile the effort is. My feeling is that although it is useful and helpful to try, actors in the drama should never expect to be rewarded with fame for their efforts. Save for the material rewards of academic tenure and book-publishing contracts, and (no doubt) a certain personal and spiritual satisfaction, however evanescent that may be, it would seem to be an essentially futile endeavor. After all, how many members of the laity (and indeed the clergy) are really going to accept the idea of a non-omnipotent God? It stretches even credulity to imagine it. Such doctrinal contradictions are themselves forever becoming, never static, and we can resolve them only by engaging them, even as we know they will forever torment the theologically inclined among us.

What is the meaning of sin, death, and the Devil for process theologians? asked another theologian at the 6th International Whitehead Conference in 2006. She answered herself: Few if any process theologians would affirm that we need to be saved from a literal Devil – a supernatural agent of evil – but most would agree with Paul Tillich’s emphasis on the demonic as a real, effective category in our world.⁹

Ultimately, academic theologians, indeed theology itself, is subject to the natural and long-standing beliefs and traditions of believers. Will most Judeo-Christians ever really personally, regardless of official edicts, renounce a sense of the Devil? When that day comes, they may be said to be ready to accept the tenants of Process Theology.

Notes

Judaism and Process Theology, Rabbi Brad Artson.  http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/process-theology/id411456738.

Dr. Ibrahim Abu Bakar, Natural, Process and Islamic Theologies, A Brief Comparison, (National University of Malaysia 2011) http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._2_No._11_[Special_Issue-June_2011]/16.pdf.

Edwin G. Garvey, Process Theology and Secularization, http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7774.Arston, op. cit.

Judy Pearsall (ed.) The New Oxford Dictionary of English, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).

Whitehead’s Distinction in Relation to Process Theologians, Process and Faith, http://processandfaith.org/writings/ask-dr-cobb/2007-01/whiteheads-distinction-relation-process-theologians.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Process Philosophy, Dipolar Panentheism, http://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/.

Bruce G. Epperly, Process Theology: A Guide to the Perplexed. (New York: T&T Clark Int’l, 2011), 77.

Donna Bowman. Recovering the Doctrine of Eternal Security, A presentation to the 6th International Whitehead Conference, Salzburg, Austria (2006), https://www.sbg.ac.at /whiteheadconference/abstracts/Bowman-Recovering%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Eternal%20Security.pdf