Process Theology: James Said…

Regarding Process Theology, my friend James commented:

The problem that develops for me is that, if who God becomes is dependent on what humanity does, doesn’t that make God kind of the unwitting evolutionary outcome of the whims of humanity? It takes the actions of humanity and elevates them to the role of creator. In the end this becomes not about a relational God but a God who exists to be formed by humanity.

Great thoughts, James. I agree that it’s dangerous to allow God to be too-easily formed by our own whims, needs, opinions, etc… But doesn’t that pre-suppose that we HAVEN’T already done that in the first place? In fact, every time we approach God, talk or think about God, aren’t we conforming God to our own expectations?

I’m not saying that because we do it already, we should just embrace the fact, without attempting to struggle beyond it. But I think it’s overly idealistic (and maybe naive) to suggest we aren’t doing that very thing already. I think Process Theology recognizes this and for better or worse, attempts to practically incorporate it into its framework and praxis.

James also said:

“The beauty of Process Theology is that it doesn’t exist in isolation” – is that really possible? I think that most theological frameworks would strive to say that they do not exist in isolation but aren’t frameworks in and of themselves isolating?

It’s interesting you took that angle, because I’ve thought about that issue as well, but from the opposite angle: I would say, in fact, that it is isolation that is not possible. Everything we do exists in an interdependent matrix – everything we think and believe is borrowed and/or shared with other organisms – both individual and corporate.

I think to say that Process Theology’s beauty is its lack of isolation is overly-congratulatory. No theology exists in isolation. I would restate it as: the beauty of Process theology is that it doesn’t pretend to live in isolation.

I don’t think frameworks are isolating. Idealistic elitism is isolating. Saying “everyone else is wrong, and we’ve got it” is isolating. And even then, such attitudes aren’t effectively isolating. They’re just ideologically so. Because frameworks cannot be built outside of the paradigms of other frameworks. That’s why it’s silly to attempt to posit postmodernism as “anti-modernism.” Postmodernism is directly connected to modernism. Without modernity, “postmodernity” doesn’t mean anything. Reminds me of all the “non-denominational” churches I grew up in. They always claimed to “read the Bible at face value” (which I don’t believe is possible – we don’t have such objectivity in this skin) and to have abandoned whatever “bad theology” they came from. But I continue to find that most “non-denominational” theology is directly informed by whatever that particular group came out of: Baptist, Pentecostal, Mennonite, whatever…

What is Process Theology?

www.TransformingTheology.org

I’m continuing to blog on various publications for a project Tripp Fuller is in on.

This pamphet is entitled: WHAT IS PROCESS THEOLOGY?

A Conversation with Marjorie

by Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki

* * *

In a nutshell, what is Process Theology?
“Process theologies are relational ways of thinking about the dynamism of life and faith. Process-relational theologians integrate implications of a thoroughly interdependent universe into how we live and epxress our faith. We are convinced that everything is dynamically interconnected; that everything matters; that everything has an effect.” (p.2)

How do Scripture and tradition function in Process Theology?

“To study the history of any faith tradition is to see how that faith adapts to the common sense of its particular time and place. Tradition is like a flowing river that continuously carves out new paths… tradition is much richer than any single period! It is constantly moving, and we who are a part of that tradition are responsible for knowing how it has developed, and for contributing to its contemporary flow.” (p.3)

“The same is true of biblical understanding. The text are given, but how they are interpreted varies enormously from age to age… how we draw from Scripture is also an adventure. Scriptural understanding blends studies of the actual texts together with the history of the way those texts have been interpreted in the tradition. Scripture may look like a steady state sort of thing, but it is actually a dynamic story of varying interpretations and applications throughout history.” (p.4)

What is Process Philosophy?
“Process is relational philosophy.” In the past, “most philosphers talked as if the ideal thing should be something solid that doesn’t depend on anything beyond itself… in the 20th Century we began to see that the ability to relate to one another wasn’t just a happenstance of the way things are, but is the core of the way things are. To exist is to be in relation. Does God exist? If you say yes, then God must also be in relation. To whom? To everyone and everything!”

Some More Process Food For Thought

• In relational categories of process thought, God creates with the world.
• God creates through persuasive power, rather than coercive power.
• There are three powers of creation: power of the past (what has been), power of God (power of the future) and the power of self (our own actions and abilities).

* * *

I like the idea of God using persuasive, vs. coercive, power. The analogy is used of Wind and Sun fighting over which one could remove the coat of the man “down there,” walking on the road. The wind blows and blows, but the man just clings more tightly to his jacket. Then the sun simply beamed warm, gentle rays down on the man until he was forced to remove his coat. The greater force was persuasive, not coercive.

In the 2nd question (p.3) above, suggests that the history of faith is a history of faith adapting to the “common sense of the time.” Really? Faith adapting to common sense? Isn’t faith, and the traditions it often brings with it, REGULARLY countercultural? Isn’t the wisdom of God foolishness to humankind? (1 Corinthians 1) To suggest that all human faith is doing is chasing common sense seems – to me – to be a discredit and even a little patronizing. As people of faith, we simply validate ourselves by aligning with popular notions of the time…

Yes, yes, yes, I know if you read this blog and think I (and the rest of “pomoEmergianity”) are just a bunch of culture-worshipping hipsters, then you’re probably saying: “aha! Aha! There it is: he admits the danger of cultural alignment.”

Well, yes and no. I believe that the underlying movement in faith-evolution involves a convergence between Holy Spirit and humankind. Humankind usually gets it wrong – a lot wrong – but the Holy Spirit is persistent enough to keep pushing us toward a greater redemptive truth.

The problem with accusing emerging strains of Christianity of being culturally-biased or culturally-compromised is that it assumes a slightly older model of Christianity isn’t culturally-biased or compromised.

I don’t think “common sense” is a bad thing. I think it’s helpful, and often it’s absolutely true. But common sense isn’t everything. Neither is intuition, or “gut-feeling,” or emotion/spiritual experience, or even historical trends. It’s an… aha… an interdependent confluence of all these factors (and more) that reveals inklings of God’s truth. Truth for today. Truth-basis for tomorrow.

The beauty of Process Theology is that it doesn’t exist in isolation – relational, spiritual or ideological.

Nate said: "Scripture Too Elevated…"

In response to the last post, my friend Nate said:

I find Scripture to be elevated to heights far too lofty in Christian – namely protestant – circles. We expect the Bible to be self authenticating, but in Scripture, this idea is never found…what a circular argument.

Other ideas are circular… Sola Scriptura, the authority of Scripture.

Christ never spoke the words, “the books of the New Testament are going to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc…,” nor did he ever say, “The words that will someday fill the canon are to be your sole authority for interpreting right from wrong.”

I am sure Christ foresaw the slow changes that would take place in language and culture over 2,000 years… changes that would cause ineptness in understanding Scripture…

So, what do you think? Is Nate right? I find his comment refreshing – even freeing – but what do we do with some of these verses (among others):

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

Matthew 22:29
Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

What was the historical/cultural context of these words? What was the understanding of the speakers or writers? Obviously, New Testament figures and writers did not see their letters as “Canonical Scripture.” Jesus clearly meant to refer back to the Jewish OT. And David was bipolar, probably manic when he wrote Psalm 119. So who knows what he was thinking

In Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence, she reminds us that in many ways, Christians traded a human Pope for a “paper Pope” during the Protestant Reformation. We over-elevated Scripture in response to over-elevating a man.

Are the current, modern Evangelical approaches to Scripture and Biblical authority inherently circular? “Neo-magical” superstitions? Misplaced (misdirected) faith?

What Can We Believe About the Bible?

www.TransformingTheology.org

I mentioned on Monday that I’m blogging on various publications (books, articles, pamphlets, etc…) for a project that Tripp Fuller (www.homebrewedchristianity.com) is helping run.

The first pamphet is entitled:

WHAT CAN WE BELIEVE ABOUT THE BIBLE?
A Program of the Center for Process Studies
by Judith Boice Casanova
John B. Cobb, Jr.
William A. Beardslee
& Joseph A. Deegan

The pamphlet opens with “Two reactions to the Bible,” first: It All Has to Be True. This view posits a rather stereotypical stance on literalists (or inerrantists). We get a brief story about a kid named Phil, who doesn’t get anything from his college professors, and found “the meaning of life” in the Bible, alone in his room. He doesn’t have to ask himself tough questions or wonder what to think: the Bible lays it all out, plain and simple. “I don’t have to worry about Science!”

Second view: One Book Amoung Many? This is embodied in “Marilyn,” who learned how to think freely in college, and came to see the Bible as one book among man ancient books that represents human wisdom. Over time, after exploring avenues of philosophy, history and self-help, Marilyn began gravitating back to the Bible. She says, “I don’t expect it to be true all the way, and I don’t expect it to agree with modern science…” but Jesus, she says, is the core of the Bible. Jesus is an absolute truth, despite her altered understanding of the Bible.

Phil accepts biblical authoritarianism.

Marilyn manages to find a core of truth in the Bible.

These highlight two overarching views: LITERAL and LIBERAL.

You can guess at the general content of these identifiers.

Next we read about The Bible as a Book of Liberation:

“The most important way of hearing the Bible today is to let it speak as a record of the struggle of God and human beings for liberation. This is important because it is what poor, oppressed people are finding in it.”

Hmmm… is that identifying another overarching view of Scripture? Or is the pamphlet itself making an argument for liberation? It continues:

Most of the readers of this booklet will not be from among the poor and oppressed… if we see ourselves in the story of liberation which the Bible tells, we shall have to ask ourselves how we can live differently, so as to take part in the story of the liberation of life to which the Bible orients us. (p. 10)

I have a deep appreciation for Liberation Theology. Understanding the needs, priorities and perspectives of oppressed and marginalized people groups is a huge necessity of recognizing Jesus’ own context and set of priorities. But Liberation Theology doesn’t seem to be the core of this pamphlet (the reader is merely teased with a brief treatment). It seems that the pamphlet really comes to a sort of conclusion on page 14: A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW ON THE BIBLE.

The process view does not “settle the question of how” to view Scripture, but it attempts to give us guidelines to intelligently and honestly approach the question(s).

Things we must consider in “process thinking” (which inevitably becomes “Process Theology”)…

• Investigate the role of the past – historical, cultural, political and even geopgraphic contexts and settings…
• Discern the leading of God – process theologians believe God is a part of everything that happens. Is God being trusted? Believed? Are some getting in God’s way? Role of the Holy Spirit…
• Understand the influences of ‘creatures’ – Worldly influence and human decision affect everything that happens, as well…
• Recognize the fallibility of human efforts – Only God is infallible. Humans who claim inerrancy are refusing to “let God be God” and refuse to acknowledge the limitations of “creaturehood”…
• Interest means more than accuracy – More important than accurate information is how we are impacted, drawn in, and opened in understanding and insight to the world around us…
• Biblical authority – Process theologians do not approach the Bible just as any other book or ancient document. They relate to it in the same way we relate to our own lives and pasts – personally, intimiately. The whole of Biblical witness is important, even those thought to be innacurate, because they reveal the whole spectrum of human understanding and interaction with scripture…

One major idea this pamphlet’s conclusion tackles is the idea of God’s “all-inclusive, unilateral power.” It asks: doesn’t unilateral power automatically (by its nature) cancel out other powers? Does it make sense to suggest that God’s ultimate power subsequently disempowers us, completely? Which would take away free will, among other things (like tangible reality, percievable cause-and-effect, etc…) and render humans inconsequential.

God’s creative (cooperative?) power is then related to proceses like evolution – emerging complexity in organisms, leading to more power allowed toward the autonomy of the created thing.

I liked the way the pamphlet ends: “one thing that is particularly remarkable about this book is that again and again it exposes human pretenses and especially the pretenses of those who claim a special relation to God. It does not absolutize itself…”

Ultimately, I found the caricature-based introduction of the pamphlet a little pretentious and condescending. Of course, in my experience, most religious pamphlets come off this way. I can picture dozens of Baptist and Assemblies of God “evangelism” brochures meant to convey a theological or salvific truth.

Can we really convey the depth and complexity of salvation (much less Biblical Authority or Process Theology) in 20 short pages? I would answer, ‘no’ (I’ve got little room to talk about depth: I write a blog).

On the other hand, this could be a useful discussion tool, especially for small groups dealing with particular subjects. The final page offers questions for discussion and then directs the reader to five books I assume expand on some of the pamphlet’s central ideas.

Ultimately, what I found important was the reminder that there are more “options” than this or that: conservative or liberal. However, the “Liberal” view of Christianity was not well-differentiated from the “Process” view. In fact, as a recovering fundimentalist, I can see all sorts of reasons I could have thrown out the whole brochure as liberal, itself. But maybe that’s a danger, no matter what. If some folks are unwilling to consider expanded views of Scripture, then even the most tactful arguments can fall flat.

More generally, I think that easy stereotypes (yes, I’m guilty of using them) are as dangerous as shortened, fast-food versions of deeper truths, philosophies and theories. We have to tread very carefully when condensing truths into small, portable, bite-sized pieces.

On the other hand, I have a few more of these pamphlets to discuss in the coming days, and I think I like a few of them better…