Please help write a Post on Process

Since yesterday I have revised it some more to remove inaccuracies. Thanks.

Hi Bo. I published a post on my blog about some of these very same questions. I started this blog in April of 2011 to explore what Emergent Christianity is (or isn't). I'm now at the place of giving Emergent Christianity expression across as many theological and doctrinal areas as possible. In essence, re-writing its positions, attitudes, and conversations first to itself (b/c its a hodgepodge, mishmash of eclecticism), and secondly, to other Christian groups, and to the world at large, in a kind of broad missional and doctrinal statement. Process Theology is new to me and so I created my own positional statement first to establish a baseline. Then went and read the piece from Bruce Epperly to discover that we have a lot in common. In that post I propose a new system called "Relational Theism" as a revision to "Classic Theism" that is at once similar to process theology but dissimilar in its ontologic structure (I make the difference between "pervasively true elements" vs. "substantially differing structures" between the two systems). Further, it is my humble attempt to re-work process theology into an Emergent theology, while avoiding "Open Theism's" (=Open Theology) positional statements. While not assuming (like Tony Jones and Emergent Village does) that Emergent theology is only about process theology. Jone's definition of Emergent Christianity and mine differ at that point. Tony Jones seems to exclude Classic Theism whereas and mine includes both Classic Theism, Open Theism and Process Theology (though I differ from the latter two positions; and see a need to revise the first). He sees emergent Christianity moving towards Progressive Christianity, whereas I see it as a middle-ground between Evangelicalsim and Progressive Christianity. And so, large philosophical differences I think.... One thing I haven't done is to determine where in all of this lies post-structuralism, unless it is this very same discussion itself. In which case, post-structuralism is already part of the Emergent/Relational-Process discussion. Anyway, here it is. See what you think. My personal email is as follows (please remove once you get it. Thx.) rslater2@comcast.net http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-and-what-of-process-theology.html & Emergent Christianity's Voice Is More Than Emergent Village's Assertions - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Theism%20and%20Process%20Theology?updated-max=2011-11-14T10:53:00-05:00&max-results=20

Russ, that is an amazing list. I am actually thinking about driving those whole post thread down to Tripp's house, setting up the recording equipment in his garage and going thought them :) Thank you for adding these questions to the list. I am now officially incapable of fitting this all into an introductory post and we have begun accumulating them for a breakout session at the Theological Conversation [link] in Jan. -Bo

I liked to add (6) how alike or different is process theology from post-structuralism?

(ps. pls correct my website with the above. thanks)

I would like to read more about this subject. Generally I am coming from a classic Theist position and understand process theology as an outgrowth of panentheism. So (1) I need to know more about open theology v. process theology. (2) I'm with Kurt Willems in that there is a need to develop a "post-conservative evangelical process theology" if such a thing can properly exist (remember, I'm coming from a classic theist position). (3) My current definition of emergent christianity would include both theism - in its classic and open versions - AND process theology. But when reading Emergent Village's claim that emergent christianity is all about process theology I find their definition delimiting to a fuller embodiment of all christian groups. Thus, emergent christianity should be more in-clusive and not simply defined as process-only. (4) As a follow up to point 3 above, "emergent" definitions I think are well understood in terms of its differences with evangelicalism, but how far does emergent christianity go down the paths of progressive christianity and towards liberalism. I would think it would syncretise itself somewhere in the middle and to the right of liberalism. And thus, emergent christianity would be more ex-clusive (as counterpoint to point 3 above). (4) Though I cannot attend the process theology conference at Claremont, I definitely would be interested in reports from the various bloggers above, and am hoping that the conference is taped and placed onto the Internet for those of us who cannot attend. (5) If there is list to be placed on, put me on it where it involves further follow up in this area. Thanks! Russ

@Tripp, I've ordered the children's book, and am looking forward to reading it. I'm curious if it could be expanded into a Process VBS curriculum?! Perhaps a possible workshop at the upcoming D.C. Emergent Event on Children and Youth. At least food for thought. And I plan to register for the ETC soon -- then start looking for flights and to book my hotel reservations. Overall (depending on what kind of flight I can get out of BWI), I appreciate the efforts that seem to have been put in place to keep costs low. It would be great to meet in person. I'm always glad to connect with a fellow Progressive Baptist. I've been following your work for a while, and have listened to essentially all the Homebrewed podcasts, as well as quite a bit of the Caputo lectures -- thanks for hosting those gems -- and the videos of the Theology after Google conference. Plus, I'm obsessed with Philip Clayton's "Adventures in Spirit." Incredible. On Loomer, I like him a lot. I only wish I could've met him in person -- or to have a recording of his seminar with Epperly, Keller, et al! I'm a big fan of Keller's writing, and I've gone to Bruce for spiritual direction quite a few times since moving to Maryland. He's great. Really helpful. I will probably try to track down used copies via Amazon at some point of Loomer's more obscure church lectures toward the end of his life. I wish Loomer had written more, but after reading his "Size of God," I was re-reading the sections on Loomer in the third-volume of Gary Dorrien's ridiculously magisterial "The Making of American Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, and Postmodernity: 1950-2005" (how does he write and know so much?! -- just flipping back through my notes make me want to re-read it, but there's so much else I want to read as well). Dorrien's survey reminded of Loomer's incredibly early deanship, etc. And perhaps he made more of a mark as a dean for Process thought that he would have as a scholar. I'm not sure I'm convinced by his late-in-life conviction that "Process-Relational" is a better term. There's something to be said for parsimony. But I do think Loomer was on to something with his theodicy that is potentially a paradigm shift beyond Griffin's important work in "God, Power, and Evil." I need to spend more time with the responses to Loomer from Cobb, et al. But Loomer's theology in general seems to take the spirit of J.B. Phillips' 1961 book "Your God is Too Small" to the next level -- that is, your God is too small unless it includes 'evil,' disease, destruction (really: EVERYTHING -- in the spirit of Loomer's "S-I-Z-E"). I've long appreciated Process Theology as way out of the traditional theodicy trilemma of the contradiction of (1) the existence of evil and (2) God being all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful -- namely, that Christians should drop the all-powerful, coercive piece. But I'm grateful to Loomer to additionally challenging me to let go of the all-loving or exclusively-loving piece. That's the question I'm living into at the moment. For a while now Buddhist thought (pace Paul Knitter) has been similarly challenging me to experience God/Reality first-hand for myself, irrespective of my preconceived notions about the universe and/or other people's second-hand talk. Thanks for your good work and inviting so many people into theological conversation.

I'm looking forward to being part of this on-going conversation. Maybe we can come up with a "post-conservative" evangelical process theology??? (I realize that may be a bit optimistic, but we shall see :-) )

@Carl would LOVE to have you at the ETC. If you can make it let me know so we can make sure to get together. What did you think of Loomer? He was in Claremont for a sabbatical and taught a Whitehead class to Epperly and Keller which is legendary. Ohh that Process kids book is really good. My wife is a children's minister with a child development degree and she was impressed...she doesn't impress easy.

@Tripp, thanks for the process theology for kids reference. I hadn't heard of this book previously. I look forward to checking it out! Also, as a follow-up to my previous comment for anyone who is interested, I just posted a copy of the aforementioned sermon that is my first attempt at a homiletic response to Bernard Loomer's Process Theology: "Living the (Hardest) Questions: What If God Is Not “Fully and Unambiguously Good?”: A Process Theology Sermon." Available at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlgregg/2011/11/living-the-hardest-questions-what-if-god-is-not-%E2%80%9Cfully-and-unambiguously-good%E2%80%9D-a-process-theology-sermon/. I hope to be at the upcoming Emergent Theological Conversation in Claremont if I can make it. Sounds like an incredible event.

1. You may need to start off with a disclaimer where you identify three or four tag statements that tend to be disabused by process theology, and express them in a non-pejorative with, so as to state "if these things are important to you and how you see the world, there really isn't going to be any point in you reading further, because you have already made up your mind". Not so as to be dismissive, but there are an awful lot of people on the web who are only looking for ways to shore up the bulwark in their mind with new information. What you are seeking to do here specifically acts against those people, and they would be better off warned politely going in that this is the case, without being dismissive or demeaning. 2. An initial post that avoids seminary bent theological words that you would never hear on the street would probably be a good idea, the "New Living Translation" version. Reduce it to a number of simply points or statements, outline style, then expand each of those points with more substance later, and link any words that might be questionable to a place that would explain them. 3. An entry explanation of how paradox plays it's part in the bible might be necessary before diving in, since process theology embraces paradox and mystery. *Grin*

I think one of the major issues that ought to be discussed is that of the general desire for a sense of security. This often plays out in the classic 'Eternal Security' conversation, but I feel the issue is actually much deeper. The basic idea of Process thinking – & certainly that of a Process God – seem to counteract all the usual desires for living out of (or in aspiration toward) any conclusion of security or certainty. This came out in a recent conversation I had with an old friend. She comes from a very conservative evangelical background & had never heard of Process theology before, so I was doing my best to explain it simply & non-aggressively. Her initial objection was (in basic summary) that a God who changes cannot be relied upon. There was a certain fear that if this type of thinking was adopted it would mean the acceptance of an uncertain future & a perpetual sense of insecurity. Which of course is part of the point – & therein lies a fundamental difficulty for people who have been raised to live based on certain conclusions of heaven/hell futures & American Dreams. (I, by the way, was/am one of these people.)

here's a Process for kids book! http://processandfaith.org/bookstore/books/building-heart-faith-talking-about-god-jesus-kids

Sorry, I didn't read the previous post, which was my fault. The discussion did raise a lot of food for thought for me though. I really appreciate your response Bo (and the podcast, of course!) Pedagogically how is philosophy talked about at the grassroots level at all? If process theology is (according to your original ask) DESCRIPTIVE of an underlying reality, then is it more a matter of finding connections between folks' lived experiences and these cosmic ideals. But then you are getting into the waters of "philosophical pluralism," let alone from religious pluralism. And what the truth quotients are of disparate theological philosophies, and how they intersect. Finally is there a "folklore" of process theology? Most people understand scientific reality to be true but still say that the sun rises in the east. That is kind of a banal example. But is there an epistemology of p.t. that allows for other ways to express that underlying reality. I don't know if Im explaining this very well. Or hey you could do a coloring book, where kids have to color in the different discrete packets of time. Start em young!

Alan, Funny thing is, Jesus used just such a rhetorical strategy. Bo, As for what to include in a post, I think that in some sense one needs to make the distinction between process metaphysics as dealing with "event" and the more substance-oriented metaphysics that understand the 'real' as being composed of materiality rather than experience. I also believe that, in some respects, Whitehead's terminology is both helpful and harmful to a broader acceptance of process theology. Because so many process theologians continue to use the terminology, it becomes necessary for anyone to translate Whitehead's terms into common speech--or at least make the point that common, 21st century definitions of certain terms utilized aren't necessarily fully the usage Whitehead employs. Just my two cents (oh, and I didn't read all the previous comments), Dustin Twitter: theology_nerd

I have to admit that, as a "normal" person, I'm not finding the tone of this post particularly helpful or persuasive to "converting." (Can anyone convert to a school of thought? Is that deliberate mixing of metaphors? Tongue in cheek? Help me out here.) All in all, this is pretty strident stuff, leaving aside the ideas therein. How about listening to people, maybe? Without being strident myself, isn't trying to decide how a school of thought can benefit the poor, deprived non-process folks kind of a form of intellectual paternalism? Isn't that, uh, bad? I don't know. Telling someone their foundations are rotten is a sucky rhetorical strategy. Not exactly milk and honey. p.s. I don't find this tone in the podcast much at all. And I would hate for that to be the case.

There is a possibility that I fixed the 'comment notification' button. Can anyone verify that it worked ? -Bo

Cameron - GREAT stuff!! Very helpful. Thank you all for the help. I have radically redesigned to post. I am always aware of the limits of 500 words but never more than with this upcoming post. Good thing Tripp gets to field follow up questions! We talked yesterday to divvy up which things goes in the post and which things will be saved for responses to question that will (certainly) arise ;) -Bo

Maybe ground the whole thing as it relates to 'traditional' evangelical theology. Tell us what process is and what it's not. Most evangelicals I know seem to judge heresies by a few simple standards. For example, does the idea permit the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus? Does it allow for the virgin birth? Does it allow for my favourite atonement theory? Where does the concept of hell fit into all of this? You get the point. If you can show how God looks in Jerusalem (as opposed to Athens) and allow folks to hang on to their central doctrines, you'll get an audience. I was attracted to process thought because it gave modern science room to breathe. However, I had to feel that some of my core convictions were safe enough, at least for a cursory look. I wanted to try it on, but not at any cost. Once I'd had a chance to look around some of those things just didn't matter any more. Looking forward to whatever you come up with!

geezzz Bo....I think we should make a list and go visit John Cobb for a fun little audio FAQ podcast! Ok so I just like the idea of visiting John Cobb but hey this is good stuff. It could fill a year of TNT!

Ok. Good. I am trying to soak all of this in :) so Scot says Biblical basis, Travis says simple, and Carl is talking process pluralism. Whew. we have a lot of ground to cover! -Bo

Ok. Good. I am trying to soak of of this in :) so Scot says Biblical basis, Travis says simple, and Carl is talking process pluralism. Whew. we have a lot of ground to cover! -Bo

@Scott, thanks for the book recommendation. I hadn't heard previously of Ford’s, "The Lure of God: A Biblical Background for Process Theism." Sounds like a great resource. I agree that there's all sort of aspects to scripture that are much more consonant with "ProcessTheology / Open Theism" than with Hellenistic Philosophy. @Bo, I'm working on a sermon for this Sunday that talks about Process Theology as one of my "growing edges." Specifically, I'm interested in the question of whether it is sufficient to talk about God as purely "love." Specifically on Bruce Epperly, his new book helped me further articulate this inchoate concern in the section on Bernard Loomer (14-15): "Rather than being fully and unambiguously good, as most process theologians assert, Loomer's God is the ambiguous energy of creation, seeking the fullness of life, yet embracing both the creative and destructive aspects of the universe. According to Loomer, a fully concrete God of sufficient stature must be identified with the whole of life and not just the positive and life-supportive aspects of creation." This claim seems right to me and helpful with reconciling theology with the insights of evolutionary biology. This perspective also seems deeply resonate with Hinduism -- such as the "Hindu Trinity" of Brahama ("the creator"), Vishnu ("the sustainer") and Shiva ("The destroyer/transformer"). Epperly's writing got me curious enough to order "The Size of God: The Theology of Bernard Loomer in Context," edited by William Dean and Larry Axel (http://amzn.to/sLLbXG). It's in the mail, and I'm looking forward to reading it. I'm also glad to hear of a forthcoming Emergent Conversation on Process Thought. That topic is long overdue. Thanks for advocating for it!

Here's my question: Is there a simple way of explaining process theology?

If you're concerned with building bridges to Christians who affirm the centrality of the Bible in their theology, then you need to explore the biblical basis for process theism. An old but helpful book in this regard is Lewis Ford's, The Lure of God: A Biblical Background for Process Theism (Fortress Press, 1978). Process thought is far more compatible with biblical accounts of God's character than the theology which comes out of Platonic and Aristotelian sources. Also helpful is exploring the idea of divine power as persuasive rather than coercive. This idea is far more consistent with the biblical claim that God is love. (And if God's power is metaphysically limited by the power of other actual entities in the universe, then the problem of evil seems to have a far better answer than traditional theism or Calvinism, which logically entails that God is morally responsible for all of the events in the universe, including evil events. Process theism acknowledges that the freedom of the world is such that even God can't control every event.)

Well, I'm a bad evangelical myself, and that's why I'm interested in bringing the fruits of formal theological education to congregations who are differently educated. I think too often folks who do radical theology, whether it's radical Calvinism (think Driscoll et al) or radical biblicism (think Pinnock and such), don't give nearly enough thought to our ethical obligations to those who differ. I'll admit that most of the process folk I know I know online only, so you might do some very good things when it comes to bringing the high-level stuff home when your audience is not seminarians but accountants and physicians' assistants. I'd just like to read/hear what some of those things are a bit more often. And whoever the audience is, insulting potential readers with bad comparisons is rarely a good idea, unless the main goal of a text is to get people dismissively angry for the sake of a good, cathartic sandal-dust-knocking party. ;)

Probably should also explain difference between "Open Theology" and "Process Theology" as they are often confused, or used poorly as synonyms. Issues of (God's) Sovereignty pop up first when this topic is brought up. A common question is How do Changeable and Process meet with regards to God, or can they? Also--the argument usually goes Nature of God or Quality/Characteristic of God in apprehending this. Is one superseding of the other, or do the two overlap less than we think, and so forth. If God is "in process" how do we interpret things like Prophecy and foreknowledge, sanctification, and eschatology? (these have to shift from traditional views) How can we *really* know if process theology is valid? Process Theology has been around for quite a while, but isn't it just another attempt to understanding God from our context? Aren't we a bit under qualified and finite to even attempt to get a handle on this? Skeptical. Maybe I'm just too post-modern to think process theology (or whatever else) can answer these sorts of questions. If God's Kingdom is "Already and Not Yet"? what does this say about God. Same thing? or outside the process?

How about these? How do we talk about justice without seeming to support “eye-for-an-eye” theology? How do we talk about love without seeming to support a “do-whatever-you-want” theology? Wish I could attend! Tom

How about these? How do we talk about justice without seeming to support "eye-for-an-eye" theology? How do we talk about love without seeming to support a "ldo-whatever-you-want" theology? Wish I could attend! Tom

My first concern is that, rhetorically speaking, equating other schools of Christian theology with people who only know transcendence OR immanence (not to mention with people who believe that one could get to Hell with a good enough oil drill) could immediately turn people off. I for one got to that part and thought, "Well, if that's who needs process thought, it ain't me." One other concern that I often have with radical theological moves (and I'm all about some radical theological moves) is that folks who "go there" need to give more than a little bit of thought to how one might relate to those folks left "back here." Is this a shift in intellectual stance that's going necessarily to involve rejection of "them"? Will one have to take a stance of the missionary to the primitives if one "goes back" to visit? Will a person who goes process have anything left to learn from "them"? Perhaps I let the pastoral overcome the proper revolutionary spirit, but I do think that other people often get overlooked when theological "camps" get together to self-define.