ProcessTheology Acriticalevaluationofitsmethodology ByJobThomas AtheologicalevaluationforthecourseSeminarHistoricalTheology Professor: Dr.RonMichener EVANGELICALTHEOLOGICALFACULTY St.Jansbergsesteenweg97 B 3001Heverlee January29 th,2009
2 Tableofcontents Introduction 3 ThePlay:ProcessTheologicalMethodology 3 TheStoryboard:HistoryofProcessThought 3 TheFirstActor:Philosophy 5 TheSecondActor:Science(andHumanExperience) 6 TheThirdActor:Scripture 7 TheStageSetting:Praxis 8 TheCritics:Evaluation 8 TheEnthusiast:Strengths 9 TheUnconvinced:Weaknesses 10 Conclusion 14 Bibliography 15
3 Introduction Inthispaperwewanttoevaluateprocesstheologicalmethodology.Processtheologyisa theological approach strongly influenced by the thought of change in reality. Based on philosophy and scientific observation process theologians conclude that reality is dynamicandchangesconstantly.theconsequenceisthemhavingdifficultyviewinggodas a static Being according to them the position of classic theism. In doing that process theologyputsanemphasisonnaturaltheology. While process theology presents some interesting insights in the dynamics of God sacting,wearenotconvincedbytheoverallnegativeapproachtowardsclassictheism. Process theology offers a too biased evaluation of classic theism and does not do credittoitsrichhistory.nexttousingphilosophyandscience,processtheologymakesa veryselectivechoiceofbiblepassagesindefendingitspremises.thedefendersrightly show a biblical God that changes his mind and brings human effort into account, but they neglect the more static attributes of God such as his omniscience and omnipotence shown in numerous Bible verses. The key problem is that they have difficulty acknowledging the paradox often portrayed in God s character. A paradox that makes quitesenseinviewofourhumanfiniteness. ThePlay:ProcessTheologicalMethodology Beforeevaluatingtheprocesstheologicalmethod,itisgoodtogiveanoverviewofthis methodology. We want to address four features of process methodology. Before doing thatwewanttogiveahistoricalsketchofprocessthought. TheStoryboard:HistoryofProcessThought Thoughbeingintroducedinthetwentiethcentury,processtheologyhasanancientpredecessorinthethoughtofeternalfluxandbecomingnessoftheworld,introducedbythe Greek philosopher Heraclitus (ca. 540 475 BC). He is especially known for his rivalry withparmenides,whooptedforastaticapproach. 1 Youcannotsteptwiceintothesame 1Ed.L.Miller&StanleyJ.Grenz,FortressIntroductiontoContemporaryTheologies(Minneapolis, MN:Fortress,1998),91.
4 river, Heraclituscharged. 2 LivingstoneandFiorenzaaddthatalsotheGermanRomantic philosophyandthechangingworldviewintroducedbythedarwinianrevolutionplayed animportantroleinthedevelopmentofprocessthought. 3 OneofthemorerecentpredecessorsofprocesstheologyisfoundinAlfredNorth Whitehead, a process philosopher who proposed getting rid of traditional metaphysics beingallaboutsubstances andreplacingitwiththeideaofprocesses. 4 Hisaim wastodevelopaconceptofrealityfittingthemodernscientificapproachesthathadreplacethenewtonianparadigm. 5 Insteadofpresupposingallrealthingshavingasimple location,timebeingindependentofallotherthingsandtherelationofthingsbeingexternal and accidental, modern science put more emphasis on interrelatedness. Whitehead s metaphysical scheme consists of four factors: actual occasions, eternal objects, Godandcreativity.Thelatterthreearenon existingrealities.theworldconsistsofthe actualoccasions,whiletheotherthreefunctionasformalcategoriesgivingshapetothe world. 6 WhiteheadattemptedtoshowhowGodactsintheworldthatweactuallyknow; aworldcharacterizedbytemporalityandfreedom.godandthisfreeworldmutuallyact upononeanother. 7 onlyalternative,hartshornefavourspanentheism,meaningthattheworldisincludedin God sbeingandthatgodandworldareinterdependent. 8 Panentheismemphasizesthat Another important philosopher is Charles Hartshorne, who believes that traditionalchristiansupernaturalismisnolongertenable.insteadofdeclaringatheismasthe Godgoesbeyondthecreatedreality,buttherealityisanessentialpartofGod. Every 2StanleyJ.Grenz&RogerE.Olson,Twentieth centurytheology:godandtheworldinatransitional Age(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,1992),130. 3JamesC.Livingstone&FrancisSchlüsslerFiorenza,ModernChristianThought,vol.2,The TwentiethCentury,2 nd ed.(minneapolis,mn:fortress,2006),309;cf.grenz&olson,twentieth century Theology,130.LivingstoneandFiorenzaaddtheBuddhistdoctrinesofbecomingandinterdependenceas asource,butthisdoesnotconvinceme.idobelievethatthisthoughtcouldhavehadaninfluenceon Cobb,basedonhisbackgroundintheAsianmissionaryfield(cf.Grenz&Olson,Twentieth century Theology,140),butIdidnotfindthistobereportedasamajorsourceinanyoftheotherconsultedworks. 4JonathanHill,TheHistoryofChristianThought(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2003),309. 5Grenz&Olson,Twentieth centurytheology,135. 6Ibid. 7Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,315. 8Ibid.,317.
5 thing isingod. Thishasthelogical consequencethat ifsomethingchangeswithin the knownworld,thisinfluencesgod,sincethischangeoccurswithinhim. ProbablythemostimportantprocesstheologianisJohnCobb.Hegivesattentionto God s consequent nature; God s effects on the world and the effects of the world on God. 9 CobbdoesnotfollowWhitehead ssomewhatvagueandimpersonalviewofgod andoptsforgodbeingaperson,asdidhartshorne: 10 Myconclusion,then,isthatthechiefreasonforinsistingthatGodisanactualentity canbesatisfiedbytheviewthatheisalivingperson,thatthisviewmakesthedoctrineofgodmorecoherent,andthatnoseriousnewdifficultiesarise. 11 TheFirstActor:Philosophy Themethodofprocesstheologyisaplayinwhichthreeactorsandonesettingarethe mainfeatures.wewillstartbyhighlightingtheactors.thefirstactorisphilosophy.remarkable about Cobb is that his work is an effort to reconceive Christian theology through an explicit engagement with modern philosophy and natural and social sciences. 12 Soprocesstheologylinksphilosophicalinterpretationwiththeologicalimplications.ProcesstheologyputsanemphasisonHeraclitus conceptofchange.itsdefenders state that [change] is fundamental to the universe, rather than something that merely happenstothethingsinit. 13 Followingfromthis,processthoughtforexampledescribes oneofthemainaspectsofgodtobehismutability.sinceheisrelatedtohumanbeings and to the world, He has to change because both humans and the world they live in change. 14 Godisnotasubstanceoutsideoftime,butachangingCharacter. 15 Inclaiming 9Ibid.,328. 10JohnW.Cooper,Panentheism:TheOtherGodofthePhilosophers(GrandRapids,MI:Baker Academic,2006),186. 11In:ibid. 12Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,327. 13Hill,HistoryofChristianThought,309. 14BruceA.Ware, AnExpositionandCritiqueoftheProcessDoctrinesofDivineMutabilityand Immutability, WestminsterTheologicalJournal47(1985):179 80. 15Hill,HistoryofChristianThought,310.
6 this,processtheologydoesnotchargetheclassicaltheismbeingwronginconceivingof God as absolute, independent, and immutable, but in conceiving him as such exclusively. 16 ProcesstheologyseeksnotonlytoconnectwiththeancientthoughtofHeraclitus. It is in the first place a theological approach that wants to link up with contemporary findings. More then a decade after publishing his Process Theology, Cobb describes his approach as a postmodern philosophy. He expresses his awe for deconstructive postmodernism,sinceitaddressesinaveryclearwaythesameissuesasdoesprocesstheology. 17 There are clear distinctions though. Process thought does not equal modernity withreason.itdoesnotseepostmodernismasamerereactiontothefailureofreason. As Whitehead has shown, (medieval) reason is something that has been rejected in many respects by modernity. 18 Cobb claims that deconstructionists use the same critiqueasdidmodernists,buttheystripitfromthepositivecontentofmodernity. 19 Processtheologytriestogobeyondthiscritique.Itshouldbeclearthattheprotagonistof theplayisphilosophy. TheSecondActor:Science(andHumanExperience) AsecondactorisScience andcloserelatedtothat:humanexperience.characteristic formanyprocesstheologiansistheybegantheircareersasscientistorhadastrongempiricistinterestandstatedtheirphilosophicalwork,counteringthethendominantscientificpositivism. 20 Itisinthisviewnotsurprisingthatfoundationaltoprocesstheology isthereconciliationbetweentheologyandscience. 21 Although acknowledging the development of theology being linked to the faith community,cobbappealedtothepresenceoftheologizingoutofthatcommunitytoes 16Ware, ProcessDoctrines, 176. 17JohnB.Cobb,Jr., TwoTypesofPostmodernism:DeconstructionandProcess, TheologyToday 47,no.2(1990):151. 18Ibid. 19Ibid. 20Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,310. 21Grenz&Olson,Twentieth centurytheology,131.
7 tablishanaturaltheology. 22 Thisnaturaltheology,ratherthanrevelation,isageneral characteristicofprocesstheology.it formsthestartingpointforthetheologicalenterprise. 23 Processtheologiansareconvincedthat [not]onlymusttheconceptofgodnot contradict scientific thinking, it must move from a naturalistic starting point, which is completelyopentoscientificinvestigation. 24 Whiteheadhimselfisquiteclearonthisin statingthat religionrequiresametaphysicalbacking;foritsauthorityisendangeredby the intensity of the emotions which it generates. 25 This shows again the very strong connectionprocessthoughtwantstomaintainbetweentheirtheologyandthecontemporaryphilosophy. Itisclearthatprocesstheologyoffersroomforhumanexperience.Itisnotafraid to use human existential questions as a starting point to develop theology. A beautiful example is the question about the use of prayer within a classic theistic view. Ford pointsoutthattheologicalreflectiononprayerfromthispointofviewisquiterare.he thinks this being logic: [if] God orders and controls all things in accordance with his eternalpurpose,whatdifferencedoourprayersmake? 26 TheThirdActor:Scripture ThethirdactorinourplayisScripture orbiblicalhermeneutics.aswewillseelaterin the critical evaluation, Scripture does not have the leading role, as is the case within opentheism.significantly,ford spublishingabiblicalsupportforprocesstheologywas duesomeyearsafterthefamousbookbycobbandgriffin. 27 Wehavetosaythoughthat his biblical argumentation is rather scarce. Ford for instance gives us the example of 22Ibid.,138. 23Ibid.,141. 24Ibid.,131. 25AlfredNorthWhitehead, ReligionandMetaphysics, inprocessphilosophyandchristianthought, eds.delwinbrown,ralphe.james,jr.,&genereeves(indianapolis,in;newyork,ny:thebobbs Merrill Company,1971):67. 26LewisS.Ford, OurPrayersasGod spassions, inreligiousexperienceandprocesstheology:the PastoralImplicationsofaMajorModernMovement,eds.HarryJamesCargas&BernardLee(NewYork,NY: Paulist,1976):429. 27LewisS.Ford,TheLureofGod:ABiblicalBackgroundforProcessTheism(Philadelphia,PA: Fortress,1978).
8 Jesusgrowinginknowledge,tryingtoproveGoddoesnottranscendallrationalstructureswhatsoever. 28 WhatprocesstheologyemphasizesisthatGodchangeshisopinion fromtimetotime.hemakeshisdecisionsbasedonthereactionofhiscreation. TheStageSetting:Praxis Thereisafinalimportantfeaturetoconsiderinthemethodologyofprocesstheology.As shouldbeclearbythedescriptionoftheactors,processtheologyismuchinvolvedwith theenvironmentwithinwhichitoperates.wewanttodescribethisfeatureasthestage setting of the practical theological play. Process theology puts a big emphasis on the connectionbetweentheologyandthe praxis.theecologicalcrisismadecobbawareof thisnecessity. 29 Theologycannotbedoneinisolationfromitsethicalapplication. 30 For Cobb, a logical consequence of the process approach to theology was abandoning his preliminarydesiretowriteasystematictheology.doingthatwouldbeameretryingto grasptheessenceofchristianfaithinanabstractmanner,whileprocesstheologyemphasizestheactualgoaloftheologybeingtheattempttotransformreality. 31 Process theology tries to live out the principle of interconnectedness. While other especiallymoremodern theologiesarehesitanttowardssubjectivityandcontextualisation, process theology sees this to be a requirement for good theology: if worldviews change, than so should theology. This connection with the contemporary contextandtheethicalpraxisisthesettingwithinwhichprocesstheologyfounditright toexist. TheCritics:Evaluation overview of the strengths of process theology. Then we will offer a summary of some Wewanttocontinueintheplayanalogy.Asisthecaseforanyplay,criticscometoevaluatehowtheactorsperformedandhowwellthestagewasset.Firstwewillgivean importantweaknessesofthethought.wewillpresentourowncritiquewithinthisev 28Ibid.,125. 29Miller&Grenz,ContemporaryTheologies,89. 30Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,333. 31Miller&Grenz,ContemporaryTheologies,91.
9 aluation,summarizingitintheconcludingparagraph.asitwasthecaseintheprevious paragraphs,itisnotalwayseasytoplacecritiqueinacertaincategory. TheEnthusiast:Strengths Somecriticsareveryenthusiasticaboutprocesstheology.Itattemptstoprovideareasonable explanation for some flaws within classic theism. First process theology addresses contemporary philosophy in a quite attractive way. Philosophy and theology have always been closely related and process theology exploits this kinship. One gives theconceptofchangepropertimeforreflectionandwebelievethisbeingagooddecision.ithasdonesowithinfluence.aslivingstoneandfiorenzapointout: Process theology has [ ] influenced theological thinking in profound ways. While refusingtoappropriatetheentireprocessmetaphysicalscheme,theologiansfindits critique of aspects of classical theism e.g., the latter s often ill advised concentrationonthedivinetranscendence tobesalutary. 32 There is attention for philosophical grounds of theology. This acknowledgement is a goodwayofintegratingphilosophyintotheology. Second,processtheologyresearchesthedepthsofscienceandhumanexperience. Gamwell, amongst others, uses the process theologians as good examples of avoiding exclusive appeal to the Christian community since they integrate a more general languageandthoughtintheirphilosophy. 33 Oftenclassicaltheismhasneglectedthecommongroundofmetaphysics.Anorientationtowardstheuseofamoregenerallanguage oftheologyisimportant.thisiswhattheprocesstheologiansaredoingorareatleast tryingtodo. 34 Third, process theology has a place for some of the more difficult Bible passage presentinggodasadynamicentityandnotsomuchasastaticbeing.hillconfirms: The strengthofprocesstheologyliespartlyinitsappealtothebible. 35 Innumerousbiblical passages God is described as an acting character. He does things. Collins sees process 32Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,336. 33FranklinI.Gamwell, SpeakingofGodafterAquinas, JournalofReligion81,no.2(2001):210. 34Ibid. 35Hill,HistoryofChristianThought,310.
10 hermeneuticsasaframeworkforbiblicalstudy.itis,accordingtohim,a refreshingaffirmationofthepubliccharacteroftheology. 36 Ontheotherhand,hedoesnotwantto goasfarasprocesstheologyinavoidingallchristianlanguage. 37 Finally,theemphasisprocesstheologiansputontheconnectionbetweentheology andtheethicalpraxischarmedus.althoughthisisnotexcludedwithinaclassicaltheism,thedangerofneglectingone sresponsibilitiesinlightofthestaticbeingthatgodis, is more real. Giving room to change and dynamics leaves no room for denying human responsibilityinethics. TheUnconvinced:Weaknesses Process theology according to us has also some weaknesses. First we want to give imageofthestaticgod,processtheologiansseemtothrowthechildwiththebathwater away.thethoughthasamajorweaknessinnotacknowledginggod stranscendence. 38 some philosophical points of attention. Process theology takes philosophy as the protagonist.intryingtoestablishamoregeneralapproachandleavingthemoretraditional ThetheologypaysattentiontotheimmanenceofGod,butindoingsolosesGod stranscendence,alsobeinganimportantcharacteristic. 39 Theytendtoseetheseparationbetweenclassicaltheismandprocesstheismtooblack and white.processtheologyholds two options for Christians: they choose the entire classic theism package (Thomism, accordingtonash)ortheyrejectit.thereisnothirdalternativetothem. 40 Theseselfconstructedlimitsaremostlybasedinanoversimplifiedviewontraditionaltheism.The interestingthingisthatprocesstheology regularlytooeasy seesclassictheismasa mere product of Aristotelian philosophy. According to this view, God is an immovable staticbeing. 41 Onecouldquestionthough whilestillholdingontogod sabsoluteness 36JohnJ.Collins, ProcessHermeneutics:PromiseandProblems, Semeia24(1982):115. 37Ibid. 38Hill,HistoryofChristianThought,310. 39Grenz&Olson,Twentieth centurytheology,142. 40RonaldH.Nash, ProcessTheologyandClassicalTheism, inprocesstheology,ed.ronaldh.nash (GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1987):21. 41F.DuaneLindsey, AnEvangelicalOverviewofProcessTheology, BibliothecaSacra134,no.533 (1977):28.
11 andimmutability whetherthebiblicalviewofgodisthisstatic.sometheologianssee noproblemintheparadoxofthebecomingandthebeingofgod. 42 Wesupportthis.This is something Cobb and Griffin acknowledge as well: one needs to be careful in seeing everythingasinprocess, forthatwouldmeanthateventhefactthatthingsareinprocessissubjecttochange. 43 Further, process theology has been questioned in its statements. Some of those containacontradictiointerminis,oratleastseemtodoso.forexampleprocesstheology has defended God s always present attribute of love, but this seems irreconcilable withtheever changingcharacterofgod. 44 Interestingisprocesstheology,asfaraslove is concerned, having difficulty with the who Cobb and Griffin call impassive God of traditionaltheism. 45 Warerightlyaddressesthesemantic game ofprocesstheology.he givesthefollowingexplanation: What really is the meaning [ ] of God's independence, for example, or God's immutability?tosaythatgodisindependentistosaythathe,unlikeallotherentities, iseminentlydependent;thatis,godisindependentofallelseinthisrespectthathe alonedependsonallelse.likewisewithgod'simmutability.godisimmutableprecisely insofar as his maximal changing never ceases. To speak of one who is maximally dependent and changing as also independent and immutable strikes me as odd,tosaytheleast,andmisleading. 46 statement, so the claim itself cannot be absolute. 47 Lindsey shows that many process Ware s difficulty with process theology is their not acknowledging this game. He comparesitwithepistemologicalrelativism.ifeverythingisrelative,eventhisisarelative theologiansrecognizetheinadequacyofaristotelianismandneoplatonismasafoundationforchristianfaith.heremarksitbeingstrangethattheynominateonemorehuman philosophytofillthisrole. 48 42Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,335. 43JohnB.Cobb,Jr.,&DavidRayGriffin,ProcessTheology:AnIntroductoryExposition(Louisville,KY: WestminsterJohnKnow,1976),14. 44Grenz&Olson,Twentieth century,143. 45Cobb&Griffin,ProcessTheology,44. 46Ware, ProcessDoctrines, 191. 47Ibid. 48Lindsey, EvangelicalProcessTheology, 27.
12 natural sciences, process philosophy and theology are incompatible with the modern Second, some critics believe process theology to be depending too much on science.alsothisproducessomedifficulties.despitetheattempttoreconciletheologyand scientificunderstandings.itisactuallyrepresentingastunnedontologywhenonecomparesitwiththecomplexityoftheworldnowbeingdiscovered. 49 Alsowithinthescientificparadigmonecandiscoverincompatibilitieswithinpro cesstheology.in doingtheology CobbandGriffinforinstancearenotdeploringsubjec tivity.theyputtoattentiontheselectiveemphasisondoctrines,butaddthat selectivity and emphasis are essential to any ordered experience, and hence to any experience whatsoever. 50 Thisiscontrastedwiththeireffortmakingitappearthattheirpositionis more consistent with the teaching of Holy Scripture than classic theism. 51 One would expect a more modest claim. Cooper calls process theology the deism of the twentieth century, since process theologians as did defenders of deism in the nineteenth cen tury consideredtheirphilosophicalconvictiontobethemostrationalofthecontem poraryworldviews. 52 Thereliesgreatdangerinseeingtheexperiencesoftheworldmakinguptheconcrete,realbeingofGod. [What]basisdowehaveforimaginingthatthecharacterofGod is any different from the character of the world? unless, of course, there is in God a moralnaturethatknowsandupholdsthatwhichisjustandrightquiteapartfromhis experienceoftheworld. 53 Withinthisparadigm,Godisalldependingonwhathiscre ationdoes.whilewedobelievethatgodmakesroominhisdecisionsforwhathiscre ationdoes,itisquiteanotherthingtoputthecreatorasdependingonhiscreation. Third,wewanttomakesomeremarkonprocesstheologicaluseoftheBible.While opentheists,suchasclarkpinnock,donotfullyagreeuponprocesstheology,theyseeit offeringgreatinsightasfarmasthedynamicsofgodareconcerned. 54 Therearemajor 49Grenz&Olson,Twentieth centurytheology,142. 50Cobb&Griffin,ProcessTheology,34. 51Nash, ProcessTheologyandClassicalTheism, 22. 52Cooper,Panentheism,165. 53Ware, ProcessDoctrines, 192. 54ClarckH.Pinnock, BetweenClassicalandProcessTheism, inprocesstheology,ed.ronaldh. Nash(GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1987):313.
13 differences as well. The two most important are the normative order of Scripture and philosophy where Scriptures are fundamental and theology precedes philosophy andtheultimatedifferencebetweentheactandthefactofgodandman. 55 WhileprocesstheologyemphasizestheinterdependenceofGodandman,opentheismseesGodas theultimatemetaphysicalfact.inopentheismgodismetaphysicallynotboundbythe thingshedoes. 56 It is logical that one has presuppositions in doing hermeneutics, but we have the idea thatprocesstheologydoessomeseriousreadingintothetextandistooselective. Fourth, although process theology does well in connecting theology with the praxis,theirclaimsofclassictheismnotdoingthisarebiasedandnotnuanced.wedo Weunderstandthat Cobb wantstocreateamoregeneralplatform fortheologizing,buthischoicetoputphilosophyandsciencebeforescripture,doesnotconvinceus. notentirelyagreewithhill,describingprocesstheologyasa desperate attempttorestatetraditionaldoctrinesformodernears,butwecanunderstandhiscritique. 57 Cobb spanentheismdoesofferakindofeschatologicalhope,butitisnotcomparable with the optimistic faith in inevitable process. Through human and divine joint effortitispossibletodothingsthatmatter. 58 Thisisaccordingtousatoostrongemphasisonhumaneffortandthe makeability ofabetterworld.theologyshouldmake theconnectionwithethics,butitcannotforgetitspositionasservantofgod swill. thepersonalinteractionofgodandman.godforinstancechangeshismindindialogue with Abraham, Moses and the repentant people of Nineveh after Jonah s visit. Still the Finally and this is a more spiritual critique process theology is lacking a personalgod.thisisquiteremarkableatfirstsight,sinceprocessthoughtmakeswayfor imageofgodprocesstheologysketchesseemscoldandimpersonal.inthisview,wedeliberatelychosethestageillustration.processtheologyoffersusaplaywecanattendto, butitdoesnotleaveroomforthetheologian oreventhechristianingeneral toengageintheplay,astheologyshould.theologyisnotameredescriptionofwhogodis, butanactiveprocessinwhichthetheologiancannotstandonthesideline,buthasto 55Ibid.,318 9;Cooper,Panentheism,191. 56Pinnock, BetweenClassicalandProcessTheism, 319. 57Hill,HistoryofChristianThought,309. 58Livingstone&Fiorenza,ModernChristianThought,331.
14 engageactively.processthought quiteparadoxicalactually doesnotpaymuchattentiontothisandindoingsoismissingoneofthequintessentialfeaturesofchristianity. Conclusion Processtheologyoffersbothgreatinsightsandaworthygoalfortheology.Itistruethat some biblical passages are difficult to reconcile with the static God of most dominant Greekphilosophy.Atthesametime,theclaimthattheologyshouldconnectwithmodern philosophy and science and that it should focus on praxis is rightful. Our big problem withprocesstheologyisthatitstheologianscreateapolaritybetweenthemselvesand classictheismandaretoomuchdenyingthestrengthsofthelatter.wethinkthatprocesstheologyprovidesanoteworthyadditiontotheologicalmethod,butdoesnotconvince as a solely standing theological system. In this regard, we want to end with the wordsofnash: CertainfeaturesofwhathasbeencalledtheclassicalconceptofGodrequiremodification. But it is quite another thing to demand that the whole traditional Christian conceptofgodbescrappedinfavorofagodwhoisneitheromnipotentnoromniscient. This is as bad a bargain as exchanging Aladdin s old lamp for a shiny new one. 59 59Nash, ProcessTheologyandClassicalTheism, 26.
15 Bibliography Brown,Delwin. RespectfortheRocks :TowardsaChristianProcessTheologyof Nature. Encounter50,no.4(1989):309 21. Cobb,JohnB.,Jr.,&DavidRayGriffin.ProcessTheology:AnIntroductoryExposition. Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnow,1976. Cobb,JohnB.,Jr. TwoTypesofPostmodernism:DeconstructionandProcess. Theology Today47,no.2(1990):149 58. Collins,JohnJ. ProcessHermeneutics:PromiseandProblems. Semeia24(1982):107 116. Cooper,JohnW.Panentheism:TheOtherGodofthePhilosophers.GrandRapids,MI:Baker Academic,2006. Fontinel,Eugene. ProcessTheology:APragmaticVersion. InReligiousExperienceand ProcessTheology:ThePastoralImplicationsofaMajorModernMovement,eds. HarryJamesCargas&BernardLee.NewYork,NY:Paulist,1976,23 39. Ford,LewisS. OurPrayersasGod spassions. InReligiousExperienceandProcess Theology:ThePastoralImplicationsofaMajorModernMovement,eds.HarryJames Cargas&BernardLee.NewYork,NY:Paulist,1976,429 38..TheLureofGod:ABiblicalBackgroundforProcessTheism.Philadelphia,PA: Fortress,1978. Gamwell,FranklinI. SpeakingofGodafterAquinas. JournalofReligion81,no.2(2001): 185 210. Gnuse,RobertKarl. AProcessTheologicalInterpretationofthePrimevalHistoryin Genesis2 11. Horizons29,no.1(2002):23 41. Grenz,StanleyJ.,&RogerE.Olson.Twentieth centurytheology:godandtheworldina TransitionalAge.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,1992. Hill,Jonathan.TheHistoryofChristianThought.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2003. Lindsey,F.Duane. AnEvangelicalOverviewofProcessTheology. BibliothecaSacra 134,no.533(1977):15 32. Livingstone,JamesC.,&FrancisSchlüsslerFiorenza.ModernChristianThought.Vol.2, TheTwentiethCentury,2 nd ed.minneapolis,ma:fortress,2006. Miller,Ed.L.,&StanleyJ.Grenz.FortressIntroductiontoContemporaryTheologies. Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,1998.
16 Nash,RonaldH. ProcessTheologyandClassicalTheism. InProcessTheology,ed. RonaldH.Nash.GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1987,3 29. Pinnock,ClarckH. BetweenClassicalandProcessTheism. InProcessTheology,ed. RonaldH.Nash.GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1987,309 27. Spitzer,Toba. TheBlessingofUncertainty. TheReconstructionist70,no.1(2005):58 68. Ware,BruceA. AnExpositionandCritiqueoftheProcessDoctrinesofDivineMutability andimmutability. WestminsterTheologicalJournal47(1985):175 96. Whitehead,AlfredNorth. ReligionandMetaphysics. InProcessPhilosophyand ChristianThought,eds.DelwinBrown,RalphE.James,Jr.,&GeneReeves. Indianapolis,IN;NewYork,NY:TheBobbs MerrillCompany,1971,67 9.