God and The World

          Mortimer Adler once said that the purpose of philosophy is to better understand the things we already know.  I believe the purpose of theology is to better understand God, which helps us develop a stronger relationship with God.  Theologians often develop various “models” of God to help them and others progress toward this goal.  A model is used in various situations to observe and study something when direct observation is impossible or impractical.  Even the theologians who develop these models of God generally realize that their models most likely are not totally accurate and are certainly incomplete.  This is not their intent.

          One of those models I find very helpful was originally described by Alfred North Whitehead.  Whitehead was a British mathematician and philosopher who wrote his most complete description of process philosophy and theology Process and Reality in 1929.  The final chapter in the book, God in the World, describes his theological component most completely.  This book is lengthy and not an easy read.  Several other process thinkers have simplified the concepts to make them more readable and understandable.  Keep in mind that Whitehead considered his world view to be a tentative hypothesis, always to be open to revision.

          The word process implies change, dynamics and becoming.  It involves a series of changes that usually led to a result.  Process thought is a paradigm (worldview) that sees reality as dynamic, relational, and creative.  The paradigm is generally compatible with the findings and views of modern science.

          Whitehead considered the basic building blocks of the universe to be energy events or becoming occasions. Energy implies a dynamic process, not a static entity. Everything, even the smallest particle yet to be discovered, is composed of these energy events.  Everything we experience, even though it may appear that it is completely material, is composed of energy events.  Also, process thinking is a relational vision.  The nature of these energy events is determined by their interrationships with each other.  Therefore, we directly observe and experience not only individual events, but the interactions between these things.

          To simplify the process model, I will describe the basics as they apply to us in everyday life.  We are continually influenced by four players during our ordinary daily activities:  the present situation, our personal past, the historical past, and God.  Every thought and action coming from us is an energy event, a becoming occasion.  It is the result of feeling many influences from the above four sources as well as our own creativity.

          For example, consider the process of making a simple decision.  You are in a bookstore deciding which of several books to buy on “integrity.”  In the present situation, you look at the front cover, read the comments on the back cover, check the table of contents, publication date, etc.  You might even read a few random passages in each book while thumbing through them.  Here, the present situation influences you.  Maybe you have read other books by one of the authors or publishers.  This is the influence of the personal past.  Historical events such as past court decisions, results of previous wars, the lives and teachings of Gandhi or Jesus, actions by past politicians, etc. might influence your decision as the historical past even though you were not yet born.  Finally, God, through gentle persuasive luring (enticing), might influence your final decision.  Hopefully, you decided to buy the book you are now reading.

          After considering or rejecting those possible influences, you make a decision and buy the book.  This process of integrating the influences and decision making is what Whitehead calls concrescence, or making concrete.  Creativity is involved, because your decision is influenced but not determined, by the present, the past, and God.  Also, your decision is now available for others to prehend (grasp).  This prehension could be one of the personal past, even possibly historical past, influences on others.  In process thought, this is called objective immortality.

          The divine component of the process model is very intriguing.  First, God is imaged as having a twofold nature – with a primordial nature and a consequent nature.  The primordial nature of God is transcendent, eternal, infinite, absolute, and unchangeable.  However, the consequent nature is immanent, temporal, finite, relative, and changeable.

          God “feels” the world through the consequent nature.  This is constantly changing.  This is the personal and interactive nature of God.  Metaphorically, this could be thought of as God’s body.

          God’s primordial nature is an infinite range of possibilities.  This is the source of God’s wisdom, and could be thought of as the mind of God.

          During God’s feeling of the world through His consequent nature, He is influenced by the continual changes happening in the universe.  However, His suggestion for every becoming occasion comes from the primordial nature, the mind of God.

          Second, God is continually active in the universe.  God acts, not with coercive force, but by persuasive luring (a phrase commonly used in process theology literature).  This persuasive luring might be thought of as similar to a weak magnetic force, gently tugging us but not strong enough that we can’t resist the force.  God makes a suggestion for every occasion.  Humans, with freedom of will, can choose to accept this suggestion completely, partly, or totally reject it.

          Third, this suggestion from God is not concerned with the distant future.  It is for the present and immediate future.  God’s suggestion is such that it represents a persuasive luring toward harmony, peace, good, happiness, enjoyment, strong relationships, and creativity. What this means is that God’s suggestion, if accepted, would result in the very best for the individual and those interacting with the individual. Again, this is all for the present situation and immediate future.

          Finally, notice that process theology is a relational vision.  God is concerned not only with the personal good of the individual, but the best for our relationships with others, the world in which we live, and between each of us and God.

          In so-called classical theism, God is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.  Some have a problem with this image of God when considering the existence of evil in the world.  If God is all-knowing, He obviously is aware of the presence of evil.  If God is all-loving, He would desire to eradicate evil.  If God is all-powerful, He would have the ability to do something about it.  Yet, evil does exist.

          One of the frequent answers to this question is:  God gave us humans freedom of will.  To act in opposition to evil would violate our freedom of will.

          Another answer often presented is:  Evil does not really exist.  All situations eventually turn out for the best, given enough time.  God, being all-knowing, realizes this but we humans, with finite wisdom, don’t realize it until much later (if at all).  Try offering this explanation to the families and friends of the September 11 victims.

          The reconciliation of the problem of evil has been a major problem for many.  Consequently, some have deserted their religion and denounced God.  How can this happen to me, my family, or the world with a God, who could and should have prevented it, in control?

          In order to better understand the problem, we need to understand what actually constitutes evil.  There are natural disasters:  earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, etc. that claim lives and cause suffering.  I don’t believe this represents evil.  These natural events are not caused by humans motivated by a desire to do harm.

          Consider the scenario of a transatlantic flight at cruising altitude suddenly disappearing from radar.  The plane disintegrated at 34,000 feet and the wreckage was found with no survivors.  Immediately, there would be speculation regarding the cause of the tragedy.  Was it weather related, such as clear-air turbulence not visible on the aircraft radar?  Was it a mechanical problem with the aircraft?  Was it human error?  Was it a bomb, or was the plane intentionally shot down by a missile?  Where was God during this event?

          In my opinion, only a human-induced cause with the motive of harming or killing others constitutes an act of evil.  All other causes would be secondary to natural events, human error, or mechanical/structural malfunction.  It is certainly a tragedy, but not necessarily secondary to an act of evil.

          A simple question was frequently asked following the September 11 terrorist attacks.  Where was God during these events?  This was followed by more specific questions such as:  Why didn’t God prevent these tragedies?  Various answers have been offered by theologians, biblical scholars, clergy, and others.

          Where was God?  God was present with all involved in these tragedies before, during, and after the disasters.  God was offering His suggestions to the hijackers, even before they boarded the planes.  God’s suggestions, remember, are directed toward peace, love, harmony, good, happiness and creativity for the present and immediate future.  Obviously, the intentional killing of thousands of people does not correlate.  Therefore, God would have been gently urging the hijackers to abandon their missions.

          God was also with the airline passengers, comforting them and urging them to be proactive during the situations.  I believe this is the reason Todd Beamer and other passengers on United Flight 93 acted as they did, attempting to abort the impending tragedy.

          God was with the victims in the Pentagon and World Trade Center Towers, offering both comfort and suggestion for their survival.  He was with each policeman and firefighter, offering suggestions which would lead to the best possible outcome of these disasters.

          God was there.  He was with everyone concerned.  He was with the nation.  He was with the world.  God was with each Christian, Jew, Muslim, member of other religions, the nonreligious, the agnostic, and the atheist.  He was gently persuading each of us toward the maximum good.  The God of process theology works through people, co-creating a better world.

          The reason I find process theology appealing is because it is a practical theology.  The model is useful in describing how an infinite, eternal, creator God can interact with us on a personal everyday basis.  The continual and infinite pulses of grace representing God’s suggestions for every occasion represent the ultimate basis for personal wisdom and integrity.

          An analogy I often use compares God with an excellent conductor of a symphony orchestra.  The conductor knows how the music should ideally sound.  He cannot force each orchestra member to play optimally. However, he gently persuades each orchestra member to play in a manner that the entire orchestra produces the desired result.  This is the way God works with us.  God does not use coercive force, but gentle persuasive luring, aimed at the very best possible outcome.  What else would you expect from a God of grace and peace?

Comments

[Mark]

"We are continually influenced by four players during our ordinary daily activities: the present situation, our personal past, the historical past, and God."

What's the fourth player for an atheist???

"God's feeling" and "the mind of God"... don't these notions, in and of themselves, limit God??? Anthropomorphism??

"Second, God is continually active in the universe." Absolutely...

Isn't easier for us to comprehend God's "Suggestions" by knowing more about God??? Maybe we don't know God intimately enough...

"In my opinion, only a human-induced cause with the motive of harming or killing others constitutes an act of evil." YES, and I (we) all have these experiences... these sorts of experiences, within the life of East Heights, have provided me with a clear understanding of of the notion of evil, and allowed me to embody it from time to time. It's interesting that my personal understanding of evil comes not from seminary, but rather, from my experiences within the life of a local congregation....

"God was there. He was with everyone concerned. He was with the nation. He was with the world. God was with each Christian, Jew, Muslim, member of other religions, the nonreligious, the agnostic, and the atheist. He was gently persuading each of us toward the maximum good. The God of process theology works through people, co-creating a better world."
Absolutely...(p.s. this level of exclusive language would land you a big "Re-Do" on the top of your paper if any member of the Saint Paul Faculty were to read ithis thing :-) )

Great post here Dr. Ed...Practical Theology is my personal favorite area of interest... I'll have to do some thinking with respect to your notion that practical and process theologies are closely aligned, or as you say... "Process theology is a Practical theology" I can see some common ground, but we need to push this notion a bit.

[Lynette]

Not surprisingly, your review of Whitehead's metaphysic is brilliant, tight, lucid. I especially like the suggestion that Process is a practical/applied theology. For years, through my own attempt at gentle persuasion, I've been trying to convince Pastor Calhoun (and another seminary friend who is equally convinced that narrative theologies are the postmodern solution) that Process should not be so quickly disgarded aside as a wholly systematic theology.

My own interest in Process began with questions of free will and decision-making (you articulated the process response beautifully). More recently, I'm interested in pursuing a process understanding of decision-making, particularly that related to career/life choices and calling or vocation.

Also, I'm wondering what Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, and the rest have to say about Jesus. Although the metaphysic and consequent redefinition of omniscience/omnipresence/omnipotence is very personal and powerful, I don't recall much comment about God as Father or Son.

Well done, Ed! I'll be back! Lynette

[Ed]

Over the years, many "Models of God" have been proposed. As stated in the original post, a model is useful to comprehend something or someone when direct observation is impossible or impractical. When describing a model of God, anthropomorphic language is frequently used. This is for the use of illustration only and has no implications on the true nature of God.

Of all the Models of God out there, in the final analysis some will be entirely incorrect and the remainder incomplete. I seriously doubt that any human could devise a true and complete Model of God.

Mark question who the fourth player (present, personal past, historical past, and God) would be in the case of an atheist. I find it helpful to keep in mind John Wesley's 4 stages of personal responses to God's grace (prevenient, converting, transforming, and sanctifying). In the case of an atheist or agnostic, prehension of God's grace is certainly possible and probably occurs frequently. This is the prevenient stage of responding to the pulses of God's grace and is available to everyone without exclusion.

According to my broad classification of theologies, some are theoretical and some practical. I believe that process theology has highly practical implications and can be used to image the (practicla)working of God withing the universe.

Lynette mentioned process Christology. I believe that process Christology is well presented in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. The Incarnate Logos is the human incarnation of the Primordial Nature of God. How did it happen? Jesus, through his intimate relation with God the Father and his expremely high level of spirituality, was able to fully prehend all of Gods pulses of persuasive luring. I believe this is similar to the views of John Cobb. In fact, I have either read or heard Cobb mention that Jesus was the Logos, and we can be "Little Logoi."

Lynette, years ago you were the first to introduce me to process thought (remember?). For this, I am extremely grateful!