Process Studies
30.1 (2001)
Edited by Barry Whitney
From Criticism to Mutual Transformation?
The Dialogue Between Process and Evangelical Theologies
John Culp
JOHN CULP is
Professor of Philosophy at Azusa Pacific University, 901 East Alosta, Azusa CA 91702. E-mail:
jculp@apu.edu
I.
Background of the Dialogue between Process Thinkers and Evangelicals
The
publication of Theological Crossfire (1990) signalled a significant change
in the tenor of evangelical responses to process thought. In effect, it
initiated a third phase of the process/evangelical dialogue. Searching for
An Adequate God (2000) and Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love (2001)
build upon that change to further the dialogue between process thought and
evangelical theology.
The first phase of dialogue was friendly. Throughout the early 1900s, traditional Christian thinkers such as Lionel Thornton [1]. J. Scott Lidgett (Maddox, Nature), and Charles H. Malik [2] responded appreciatively to Whitehead=s newly published writings by making careful use of Whitehead=s concepts in their theological writings. However, the situation rapidly changed. Process theologians levelled trenchant criticisms at the traditional Christian understanding of God as unaffected by the world. Traditional Christian theologians responded by sharply critiquing process theology. Evangelical theologians such as Royce Gruenler and Ronald Nash challenged the claim of process theology even to be AChristian@ theology [3]
Even
during this second phase of public conflict, informal contacts took place.
Individual process thinkers such as John B. Cobb, Jr.
visited evangelical institutions such as Wheaton College in Illinois. Evangelical
graduate students studied the thought of Whitehead,
Hartshorne, Williams and other process thinkers at Chicago, Claremont, Union
in New York, Southern Methodist University and other universities.
These informal contacts led to the publication by individuals such as Richard
Rice, Stephen Franklin, James Mannoia, and David
and Randall Basinger of several articles and an occasional book with a
more reflective understanding of process theology and some appreciation for
process concepts [4].
Utilizing
the format of an essay, questions about the essay, replies to the questions,
and a responsive essay, evangelical Clark Pinnock and
process theologian Delwin Brown initiated the third
phase of evangelical/process relations. Although Theological Crossfire
as a title sounds adversarial, Pinnock and Brown
agreed that Christians needed to move beyond sniping to conversation. As
moderates, they began a dialogue by examining major theological doctrines with
the hope that an accurate understanding of the other side would prove helpful
to both sides.
In 1994,
evangelicals [5] who agreed with some of the process critique of
traditional Christian theology and sought to reformulate the tradition to
take account of that critique without accepting the process alternative published
The Openness of God. It challenged the traditional Christian understanding
of God as unaffected by the world on scriptural rather than philosophical
grounds, but the description of God sounded very similar to that of process
theology. In order to retain credibility with evangelicals, the authors carefully
distinguished their understanding of God from a process concept of God. The
Openness of God contributed indirectly to the evangelical/process dialogue
by developing the evangelical perspective. The characteristic evangelical
distinction was that God=s limitation by the world was based
upon God=s choice to be self-limited rather
than upon the metaphysical necessity of the world [.6
Two conferences
at Claremont provided important opportunities for dialogue between process
and evangelical thinkers and contributed to the publication of two additional
books: Searching for an Adequate God and Thy Nature and Name is
Love. The 1997 conference grew out of a shared concern by process and
evangelical thinkers to respond to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. The
participants in this conference included Clark Pinnock
and Delwin Brown, three of the authors of The
Openness of God, the editors and authors of Searching for an Adequate
God, and six of the contributors to Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love.
Further conversations between process and evangelical thinkers took place
in a session at the Whitehead Centennial celebration
in 1998 at Claremont.
Many
of the contacts between process and evangelical theologians in the third phase
of the relationship have involved individuals identified as Open or Free Will
theists. But, the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition has also supplied occasions
for discussions between evangelicals and process thinkers [7].
Because Wesleyan theology is neither exclusively liberal nor evangelical,
this discussion has revolved around the more specific relationship between
Wesleyan theology and process theology. The presence of evangelicals and process
thinkers who have a common tradition in Wesleyan theology provides another
perspective in the dialogue between process and evangelical theology.
II.
The New Dialogue
(a)
Theological Crossfire
Theological
Crossfire brings liberals and evangelicals into conversation.
Brown speaks for the liberal side, primarily process theology, and Pinnock speaks for the evangelical, or conservative, side.
They dialogue in the midst of crossfire because they share a commitment to the
Christian faith and a conviction that the contemporary division of the
Christian church into two parties needs to be addressed. Rather than seek to
arrive at a common understanding, they hope to hear and be heard. Although
giving different descriptions of the two sides, they do, in fact, agree in
their description of the parties involved in conflict. For example, Pinnock says that evangelicals seek to maintain doctrinal
continuity with the apostles and the early church while liberals work
inductively from contemporary experience (13). Similarly Brown, in discussing
Scripture, distinguishes between those who emphasize the past and those who
stress judgments characteristic of the present (22).
Brown and Pinnock each present their side in chapters on theological method, God, human nature and sin, Christ, salvation, and Christian hope. While agreeing on a number of issues in each topic, differences do arise. Theological methodology and the doctrine of God elicit the clearest differences between the two positions. The other differences tend to follow from these.
Further,
the other differences are held much more tentatively with a willingness to
consider alternative positions.
The difference
in theological methodology relates to the use of the past and the use of contemporary
experience. While Brown acknowledges that liberals have often failed to listen
to the Bible and tradition, he challenges the evangelical claim of that there
is uniformity in Scripture. Because of the diversity of Scripture, Brown rejects
absolutizing any specific understanding of the tradition
(25-27). For Brown, the Bible has the power to create Christians, but this
does not result in uniformity and occurs in an on-going conversation with
contemporaries (28-29). Pinnock appeals to absolutes revealed by God as the final
authority in theological reflection. The heart of this revelation is the proclamation
of Jesus in Scripture as God=s saving
action (36). This does not result in a simplistic methodology because it recognizes
that theology arises out of Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason (39-40).
Pinnock acknowledges the diversity in Scripture
as the ultimate authority but appeals to continuity within diversity and the
early creeds as the basis for theology. The continuity in the midst of diversity
consists of recognizing the existence of an infinite, personal God, the brokenness
of the world, God=s decisive
action in the Anointed One, and the Trinity (49-50). These methodological
differences show up in the understanding of Scripture. Pinnock understands Scripture to be the source of truth (13),
but Brown understands Scripture to be the source of transformation (28).
Liberal
and evangelical differences with regard to the concept of God grow out of
different understandings of the relationship between God and the world.
Evangelicals base the relationship between God and the world upon God=s
transcendence, or independence from the world (63). Because of God=s
independence, God can and does choose to create and to continue to be related
to the world. This on-going relationship is such that God is vitally related to
the world and affected by the events of the world (67). In contrast, the
liberal understands the relationship between God and the world as a
relationship characterized by God=s
involvement in the world (88). Even efforts to speak of God in distinction from
contemporary experiences are affected by those contemporary experiences. This
does not reduce God simply to contemporary experience. Liberals retain a
concept of God=s transcendence in that God cannot
be identified with any one understanding of who God is (93-95).
Pinnock=s utilization of the doctrine of the
Trinity expresses the evangelical emphasis upon God=s transcendence.
The doctrine of the Trinity provides Pinnock with
a way to reconcile God=s loving relationship with the world
to God=s independence from the world. Pinnock agrees that it is meaningful to speak of God as love
only if there is there is something to love. This appears to make the world
necessary for God and thus to qualify God=s independence.
But God=s independence is preserved if God
exists as three persons in a relationship of love because then God loves without
needing the world (64). Brown, consistent with the liberal emphasis upon God=s relatedness with the world, finds
this understanding of God as self-related, self-communicating, and self-loving
inconsistent with the New Testament understanding of God. For him, the concept
of God as eternally related to the world more adequately describes God as
love (73).
The different
understandings of God=s relationship to the world also result
in different understandings of God=s power
to change the world. Pinnock holds that God=s power
is self-limited which allows room for human influence upon God (70). However,
since God=s power is self-limited, God can both
act independently from the processes of nature in the present and will act
independently of human agency at the end of time in a final judgment (71,
76). Brown rejects the concept of God=s self-limitation.
If God is self-limited, then evil, even if allowed rather than caused by God,
is still the result of God=s action,
or inaction. A more adequate understanding of God=s power
views it as supreme in relation to other powers but not as an irresistible
power now or at the end of time (74, 86).
Theological
Crossfire made several important contributions to the
process/evangelical dialogue. It initiated a meaningful dialogue between the
two parties. In doing so, it increased the understanding that each side had of
the other. It also identified an issue that has proved central to the ensuing
stages of dialogue. Pinnock=s utilization
of the doctrine of the Trinity in order to avoid God=s
dependence upon the world has been developed especially by the Open concept of
God to differentiate evangelical theology from process theology. Theological
Crossfire continues to be significant for the current dialogue through the
model it provides for dialogue. It expresses both an awareness of differences
based on the other side=s own understanding of its own
position and an appreciation for the alternative position. For example, Pinnock challenges, with process theology, the Reformer=s
concept of God as manipulating the world (67). Brown agrees that Scripture is
crucial to the Church as a source of transformation and that evangelicalism=s
emphasis upon transformed individuals gives it a valuable vitality. Pinnock accepts the liberal effort to recognize the
diversity in Scripture and the importance of Christians speaking to the
contemporary situation.
(b)
Searching for an Adequate God
Searching
for an Adequate God continues the discussion initiated ten
years earlier in Theological Crossfire. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark Pinnock provide
essays introducing the discussion by describing the basic difference between
the Open view of God and the process concept of God. The structure of the
volume involves two sets of articles and responses with interesting differences
between the two sets. One set consists of an initial essay by Griffin with Hasker=s response and the final essay in
the volume by Hasker with Griffin=s
response. Essays and responses by Howell, Wheeler, and Rice compose the second
set.
The
Griffin-Hasker exchanges provide insights into the
similarities of the two positions, critiques of the other=s
position, and responses to critiques of their own position. Howell, Wheeler,
and Rice write and respond to each other as individuals who have been
influenced significantly by process thought and an evangelical heritage.
Drawing on their own experiences, they discuss how process thought has been
helpful to their theologies. For Howell, process thought along with her
evangelical heritage provides important resources for her position as a
feminist. For Wheeler, process thought provides a metaphysic to support,
articulate, and challenge his position as an evangelical. For Rice, process thought
provides important resources, which must be modified, in order to be consistent
with his evangelical position. While all of the authors in the volume share a
concern for the integrity of both perspectives, Griffin and Hasker
seek to show the adequacy of their own position. Howell, Wheeler, and Rice,
however, seek to show how both process and evangelical thought make important
contributions to their individual Christian theology.
The
two types of dialogues point to some significant similarities between process
and evangelical theology. Griffin lists the similarities between Open free will
theists and process free will theists as agreements that (a) the criteria for
judging theological positions are broadly biblically based, rationally consistent,
and consistent with the best knowledge of the contemporary world, (b) God is
the supreme power and is perfect in power, (c) God created our universe, (d)
God is active in nature and human history, (e) God is a personal, purposive
being involving temporality and response to the world, (f) God is essentially
love rather than power, and (g) there is salvation after death (10-14). Griffin
recognizes that the latter point, which he himself strongly affirms, is
controversial within process theology. The most significant agreements involve
understanding God as love and the nature of God=s
action in the world. And yet, these agreements lead to differences on two
points when examined closely.
God as
love provides the basis for the relationship between God and the world. Both
sides in Searching for an Adequate God understand love as an involvement
with another in which the other significantly affects and changes the one
who loves. Hence, the world affects God. This contrasts to the traditional
Christian understanding of God=s relationship to the world, which
holds that God affects the world but is not affected by the world. The Open
view explicitly affirms that love involves being affected and that this applies
to God as love (Rice 183-84 and Hasker 216-17).
The
basic agreement about God as love becomes disagreement when the primary object
of God=s love is specified. Process theists
hold that the world is metaphysically necessary in order for God to be a God of
love (Griffin 12-14 and Howell 74). If there is no object of love, love is
impossible and God as love is impossible. Because it is metaphysically
impossible for God to be love without the world, traditional Christian
doctrines such as creation from nothing, God=s
power to act unilaterally, and God=s
foreknowledge of future events as actual are logically inconsistent with
understanding God as love. The Open view responds to this process perspective
by developing Pinnock=s
utilization of a doctrine of the Trinity in Theological Crossfire. God
is essentially love in the relationships among the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because God is necessarily related to God as
Trinity, God does not require the world. Since the world is not necessary for
God to be God, God can choose to create and to love the world (Rice 91-92).
Griffin questions the adequacy of basing God=s love
upon choice. The existence of evil in the world indicates the absence of God=s
love. Thus God chooses not to love all the world but
rather to love the members of the Trinity. Practically, God chooses to love
some and not others, and this limits God=s
nature as love (Griffin 17-18).
David
Wheeler proposes overcoming the difference between understanding the world
as necessary or as contingent by recognizing the point of the doctrine of
the Trinity. Rather than focusing on the Trinity as internal or external,
as God as love in the Trinity or God as love requiring the world, he suggests
recognizing the Trinity as expressing diversity in unity (117-18). However,
this suggestion will require significant development in order to be satisfactory
to each side of the discussion. Evangelicals are likely to find it too general
to be helpful while process thinkers will hesitate to accept it as a description
if there is no recognition of the metaphysical necessity of both diversity
and unity.
Howell
suggests that the identification of the difference between the two positions
be refined. It is not that one side holds to a necessary world while the other
side holds to a world that is the result of divine choice. Instead, she points
out that different understandings of where necessity
and contingency occur in the relation between God and the world give rise
to the disagreement (204, 206). From the process perspective, a world is necessary
but this or any other specific world is contingent upon God=s choices
with regard to that world (Griffin 251). On the other hand, the Open view
maintains that the existence of a world depends upon God=s decision
to create from nothing but that having created this world,
God is bound to this world by God=s love
for the creation (Rice 199). Howell finds the different understandings of
necessity and contingency creative (207) while Rice finds the difference between
the world as necessary or contingent unresolvable (200).
The second
point of general agreement, which becomes disagreement in the details, is
the nature of God=s action in relation to human existence.
Both dialogue partners agree that God=s action
in the world takes into consideration the reality of what God has created,
namely that there are realities that exist without being the direct result
of God=s will (Rice,185). God=s action
in relation to these realities can be understood as involving mutual interaction(persuasive), unilateral(coercive) action, or some
combination of both mutual and unilateral actions. In spite of the common
understanding that process theists limit God to persuasive action and evangelicals
affirm that God acts coercively, both sides agree that God ordinarily works
in human experience through mutual interaction, or persuasion (Hasker
41). Hasker and Rice acknowledge the destructive
nature of unilateral action for human freedom (Hasker
46, 217 and Rice 191, 194). In fact, Hasker states, AIn this age of the world, God does indeed persuade but
he seldom compels@ (237-38). However, in contrast to
process theology, evangelical theology does affirm God=s capability
of unilateral action and the actuality of God=s acting
unilaterally. God=s unilateral action is present in creation
(Rice 191 and Hasker 228-29), in occasional events
in individuals= lives, and in God=s final
triumph (Hasker 238).
Although
the majority of process theists have asserted that God is only able to act
in a mutual manner due to the reality of other agents, there is some recognition
that some of God=s actions involve less mutuality or
are Aquasi-coercive.@ Griffin
states that in the original conditions leading to a specific world, God=s action
is quasi-coercive because no past exists to compete with the divine purposes
(30). Howell affirms that God acts unilaterally in unifying the multiplicity
of the world in God=s being
(205). Process theists do not conclude in these cases that God acts coercively,
but they do recognize that in God=s own
becoming and in events of creation, God=s actions
take priority over the actions of others. It can be said that God initiates,
but that does not mean that God is the sole agent because God is responding
to prior events in the unification of multiplicity and subsequent events respond
to God=s purposes in moments of creation.
Part
of the Open view=s interest in retaining the concept
of God=s unilateral action grows out of the
concern that God=s actions be unique to specific situations
rather than constant and universally the same. The Open view=s criticism
is that the process understanding that God presents possibilities to events
misses God=s provision of specific salvation for
individuals (Rice 185, 192). God=s ability
to choose to create and love makes it possible for God to relate to events
in the world as individual events making a personal relationship possible
if God chooses to enter into a personal relationship (Rice 185, 189, 200).
While the process
concept of God presenting a unique purpose to each occasion is a metaphysical
generalization, it does not preclude a variety of possible aims for further
feelings of God, which would be unique depending upon the response of each
event. Cobb and Griffin explicitly affirm the variability of divine action
(Cobb xiii and Griffin 12-13). This appears to provide for God=s specific
action in relation to specific events. Rice, however, still finds that process
thought is not helpful in thinking about God=s relationship
to the world at the level of God=s involvement
in specific events (181, 187). His objection appears to be that the generality
of metaphysical description in process thought imposes limits upon God=s action that are not necessary (188).
Although Open theists and process theists both hold that God acts in various
ways that are appropriate to specific situations, Open theists hold on to
the importance of God=s unilateral action.
The identification
of differences even in similarities that results from the dialogues in Searching
for an Adequate God clarifies the foundational difference between process
theology and Open theists. Cobb identifies this foundational issue most clearly.
He characterizes process theists as holding that God=s actions flow from God=s nature
while Open theists emphasize God=s will
over God=s nature (xiii). Griffin in his response
to Hasker provides some additional delineation of
this foundational difference. According to Griffin, metaphysical principles
describe the nature of God and the relationship of God to the world rather
than being imposed by a reality other than God. Thus metaphysical principles
are linked to God=s nature. In contrast to that, Hasker expresses a completely voluntaristic
perspective by deriving both the existence of a world and the characteristics
of this world from God=s choices (Griffin 251). Understanding
God primarily in terms of God=s nature
as love or understanding God primarily in terms of God=s will
to love distinguishes process theism from Open theism. This distinction leads
directly or indirectly to the other differences between the participants in
this dialogue. For example, the evangelical rejection of the necessity of
the world for God is based upon the affirmation of God=s unlimited
expression of will. If the world is necessary for God, God cannot act without
the world.
Searching
for an Adequate God has made important advances in the dialogue
between process thinkers and the Open view of God. A much more complete and
precise identification of similarities has been accomplished. Differences
between the two perspectives, which were identified in Theological Crossfire,
have been examined and defined more clearly. Several important issues for
future dialogue, such as whether God should be understood primarily as nature
or as will and the issue of how to account for God=s saving
action in the events of an individual=s life,
have arisen out of the process of clarification. Finally, the theologies of
Howell, Wheeler, and Rice demonstrate the possibility of creative interaction
that goes beyond either perspective by itself.
A review
cannot convey all the riches of this dialogue. Reading these essays and the
give-and-take that occurs in them will enrich anyone seeking to better understand
both the differences between process thought and the Open expression of evangelical
theology and the potential for significant development in theological responses
to the contemporary religious and intellectual context.
(c)
Thy Nature and Thy Name Is Love
Thy
Nature and Thy Name Is Love examines the relationship between process
thought and Wesleyans in the last half of the twentieth century. During this
time, such as United Methodist Paul Mickey and Church of the Nazarene Mildred
Bangs Wynkoop drew upon process concepts.8
Recognizing also that many process theologians have been part of the
Wesleyan/Methodist theological tradition, the editors seek to show how an
explicit interaction between process theology and Wesleyan theology leads to
distinctive contributions to contemporary debates in metaphysics, epistemology
and ethics. To this end, the editors have included essays dealing with the
historical connections between Wesleyan and process theology, the God-human
relationship, the doctrine of the Trinity, concepts of divine power,
epistemology, aesthetics, and the appropriate human responses to divine grace.
The presence
of four themes throughout the essays manifests the impact of the Wesleyan/Methodist
tradition upon this volume. The first theme is the priority of divine grace
as the basis for human freedom, vital to human knowledge, and enabling transformed
living (Ogden, Stone, Cobb, Culp, Moore) The second theme is the importance
of human response to divine grace culminating in Christian living (Suchocki,
Stone, Cobb, Young). The importance of human response leads to the theme that
human experience and praxis are vital to theology (Ogden, Suchocki, Stone,
Walker, Moore, Young). Finally, these essays fit
the title of the collection in that they express the theme that God is characterized
by love, which responds to humans (Stone, Maddox, Lodahl, Moore, Young). However, these essays do not simply
restate Wesley in a contemporary context. They include critiques of Wesley=s and
the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition=s acceptance
of simple foreknowledge (Maddox), basing human freedom on God=s self-limitation
(Oord), a soteriological
understanding of the Trinity (Powell) and homocentrism
(Odgen, Stone, Walker, McDaniel, Farthing).
The clear
presence of theological themes that are central to the Wesleyan theological
tradition makes dialogue possible between process and Wesleyan theology in
this volume. The awareness of the distinct identity of each tradition enables
the participants in this dialogue to recognize both the similarities and the
differences between these two theological traditions. Stone and Oord,
Ogden, Suchocki, Moore, and McDaniel and Farthing offer lists of the similarities
between process and Wesleyan theologies. These lists and specific references
in other essays identify six similarities: (a) God is understood as love involving
God=s presence
in human experience and God=s response
to that experience, (b) human existence depends upon God=s grace
and that grace makes humans free, (c) humans respond to God resulting in the
fulfillment of God=s intentions
in the concrete experiences of individuals, (d) knowledge involves more than
subjective sensory experience, (e) experience broadly understood is crucial
for theology, and (f) reality is characterized by diversity and relationality.
The
awareness of differences results in concerns about process theology that are
similar to some of the concerns expressed by evangelicals in Searching.
Padgett=s warning about comprehensive
metaphysical systems and Powell=s critique that process thought does
not sufficiently recognize the difference between God=s
being and other beings make specific the concern in Searching that God
not be limited by metaphysical categories. Maddox=s
uneasiness about the process limitation of God=s
action to luring creatures and Lodahl=s
concern that the process rejection of creation from nothing limits God=s
ability to save all reality offer additional statements of the concern in Searching
that God does not relate personally to individuals.
The Wesleyan/process
dialogue in Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love contributes to both partners.
Generally, process thought provides a theoretical basis for Wesleyan theology.
Often process thought supplies a metaphysical basis for Wesleyan convictions.
Cobb finds that Whitehead enables Wesleyans to avoid
any human boasting regarding salvation. Culp finds process epistemology challenges
the dominant epistemological reliance upon sensation and provides an explanation
for Wesley=s discussion
of spiritual senses. Inbody, in conceptualizing
the Trinity uses process thought to account for God=s nature
and power as social in a challenge to substantialistic
metaphysics. Stiles uses process insights to broaden
Wesleyan theology by recognizing the role of the aesthetic in theology. Other
essays draw upon process thought to challenge homocentrism
in contemporary thought. Process thought enables Walker to appreciate the
other including the other of non-human existence. Moore draws upon the process
recognition of human responsibility for the ecosystem. Process concepts also
support responding to social injustice and consumerism in Young=s and
McDaniel and Farthing=s essays.
But there
are also points at which Wesleyan concepts assist process theology. Oord takes Wesley=s concept
of God as Spirit and explains how God as provider of initial aims is not responsible
for the evil that results from human action because God does not have the
control that humans have over human bodies. Lodahl
develops the idea of God=s nature as love to identify God=s love
as eternal, the world as the result of God=s eternal
loving, and God=s ability to save all reality as an
alternative to the either/or response of process theology to the doctrine
of creation from nothing. Rather than appeal with the Open view to God=s will
to save, Lodahl bases God=s saving
action on God=s eternal nature as love. The essays
by McDaniel and Farthing and by Moore point out how concrete Wesleyan expressions
of process theoretical positions make abstract concepts actual.
Finally,
several essays go beyond contributing to the dialogue partner=s
theology by providing examples of mutual transformation. Stone brings together
the Wesleyan expectation that God will be personally present to those who
respond to God=s initiative with the process
awareness of relationality, creativity, and freedom
in order to reappropriate the theological sense of
God=s presence in the world in both
cosmic and individual aspects. Cobb utilizes Whitehead=s
understanding of the immanence of God in each occasion to resolve the tendency
to oppose grace to freedom and to make Wesley=s
insight of God=s mutual relation with humans a
consistent reliance upon God=s grace as the source of human
freedom. Lodahl seeks to move beyond the rejection of
creation from nothing without breaking the relationship between God and the
world by focusing upon God=s eternal love in order to show the
necessary effectiveness of divine love.
While
this volume focuses upon the process/Wesleyan dialogue, it also contributes
to the broader process/evangelical dialogue in two ways. One contribution
comes through making the important similarities between Wesleyan and process
theology evident. Awareness of these similarities or compatibilities assists
in keeping the discussion alive because it helps the partners recognize shared
grounds for conversation. This volume also provides specific examples of the
value of the dialogue. Specific examples of metaphysical support and mutual
transformation encourage the search for additional ways that process and evangelical
thinkers can assist each other in responding to the contemporary situation.
The vitality
and insight of the essays in Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love demonstrate
how process theology can help evangelicals broaden their recognition of God=s presence from being limited to God=s presence
in the world in Christ. This volume persuasively argues for God=s presence
in understandings of being, epistemology, practice, anthropology, and Christian
life.
III.
Conclusions and Possibilities
The
diversity among the evangelicals in these three phases of the new dialogue
leads to an important conclusion regarding the continuation of the discussion.
While the evangelical participants can generally be described as moderate, they
come from a variety of traditions. Baptists, Free Will Theists, and Wesleyans
have found process thought helpful in communicating God=s love
to the world. Being aware of the diversity present within evangelical theology
will help process theologians recognize that there is a basis for discussion
even though many evangelicals reject process theology. For their part,
evangelicals need to recognize the diversity within evangelical thought in
order to avoid narrowing the evangelical tradition in a way that loses its
vitality. To focus upon propositional understandings of truth and a concept of
God as controlling narrows evangelical theology and loses the evangelical
concerns for Scripture as living and for commitment to Christ as expressed in
daily life. The broader understanding of evangelicalism will enable
evangelicals to recognize that there are commonalties making dialogue possible.
Future
discussion among process and evangelical theologians will need to deal with
four issues raised by these three recent publications. Rice raises the issue of
God=s personal relation to the world. He
fears that descriptions of God=s general relation to the world do not
do justice to God=s specific saving events in
individual lives as part of salvation history (Searching 192, 197).
Process theologians will need to develop the theoretical structures in process
thought that acknowledge the personal nature of God=s
action for salvation in an individual=s life
in order to respond to this concern. In developing that response, process
theologians may also find the concrete concerns of the Wesleyan/Methodist
tradition helpful in linking actual experiences to theoretical structures.
The other
three topics for future discussions constitute a nest of issues beginning
with the debate about the status of metaphysical principles. Evangelicals
understand the affirmation of metaphysical principles as limiting. God. While evangelicals accept the validity of logical limitations
in understanding and describing God=s action,
they reject identifying these logical limitations as metaphysical principles.
They understand logical limits as arising out of the limitations of human
understanding rather than being based upon the nature of existence (Griffin
Searching 257). In responding to this understanding of logical limits
and metaphysical principles, process theologians will need to recall the concern
of evangelicals to hold metaphysical principles tentatively. But that is consistent
with Whitehead=s understanding
of metaphysical principles as generalizations.
Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical
Assessment Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. 1996.
Cobb,
John B. Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock,
eds. Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free
Will Theists. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company. 2000.
Culp,
John. AModern Thought Challenges Christian
Theology: Process Philosophy and Anglican Theologian Lionel Thornton."
Anglican Theological Review, 76 (1994): 329-51.
Ford,
Lewis S. AResponse: Lionel S. Thornton and Process
Christology.@ Anglican Theological Review 55
(1973): 479-483.
Gruenler, Royce Gordon. The Inexhaustible God:
Biblical Faith and the Challenge of Process Theism. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker. 1983.
Malik, Charles. AAn Appreciation of Professor Whitehead with Special
Reference to his Metaphysics and to this Ethical and Educational Significance.@ Journal of Philosophy 45(1948),
572-582.
Mickey,
Paul. AToward a Theology of Individuality:
A Theological Inquiry Based on the Work of Alfred North Whitehead
and David Rapaport,@ Th.D. Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary. 1970.
Mickey,
Paul. Essentials of Wesleyan Theology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1980.
Nash, Ronald H. The Concept of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1983.
Pinnock, Clark H., and Delwin Brown. Theological
Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1990.
Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press. 1972.