Process Theology Based on the textbook

1

Process TheologyA Short Course

Michael A. Soderstrand

Wellspring UCC Wednesday Morning Group

June 11 – August 13, 2010, 10:30am

Based on the textbook:

C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology A Basic Introduction, Chalice Press, St. Louis, MO, 1993 (final chapter by

John B. Cobb, Jr.) or the 2007 version.

2

Lecture 2Ch 2: God’s Love and Our

Suffering

Ch 3: Love, Power, and

Relatedness

The issue of how a loving God could

allow so much suffering is one of the most difficult to answer in

Traditional Christian Theology

3

God’s Love and Our Suffering

The issue of how God could be all powerful, all loving,

and yet allow suffering is the subject of the excellent book “God’s Problem” by Bart Ehrman†.

1. Ehrman goes to Scripture to find seven different explanations for suffering.

2. He concludes that NONE of these explanations are satisfactory.

3. This problem is the major reason Ehrman and others have found Traditional Christian

Theology lacking (Note: Ehrman now considers himself agnostic).

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our

Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

4

God’s Love and Our Suffering

Process Theology DOES NOT reject any

of these explanations – it just sees

them in a new light of a persuasive

rather than coercive God.

1. Let’s briefly look at all seven of Ehrman’s Scripture

based explanations† in light of Process Theology.

2. Process Theology would agree that NONE of these

explanations are in themselves satisfactory.

3. But in total, they make perfect sense if God is

persuasive rather than coercive.

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most

Important Question – Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

5

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem

Bart Ehrman sets up the dilemma in the

classical way on p. 8 of his book:

1. God is all powerful.

2. God is all loving.

3. Suffering exists and it is real.

How can the above three assumptions all be

true?

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our

Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

6


Bart Ehrman identifies seven different explanations

given in Scripture for suffering:

1. Suffering occurs because God is punishing sinners (Chpt. 2 & 3)

2. Suffering is an inherent consequence of sin (Chapter 4)

3. Suffering is inflicted by Satan on those who follow God

(mentioned briefly on page 7 and discussed in Chpt. 7 and 8)

4. Suffering is used by God for redemptive purposes (Chapter 5)

5. Suffering is a test of God’s people (briefly mentioned on page 7

and then discussed in a different context in Chapter 6)

6. Suffering is a mystery only understood by God (Chapter 6)

7. Suffering is real and abhorrent to God and God will correct

everything at the “End Time” (Chapters 7 and 8)

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most


7


1. Suffering occurs because God is punishing sinners:

1. The prophets of the Old Testament understood the suffering

of the people as a direct consequence imposed by an angry God against a people who have sinned against Him.

2. Those who wrote Scripture understood God as dealing with entire communities, not with individuals and thus saw all of

society guilty and subject to punishment. 3. The modern concept of God punishing individual sinners is

closely related to the development of atonement theory that the death of Jesus on the cross was a sacrifice demanded by

God and Jesus was a substitute for all the sacrifices God would otherwise require from society.

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

8

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem1. Suffering occurs because God is punishing sinners:

1. In Process Theology we recognize that it is often useful for

humans to personify God – God as a personification not a person.

2. When we personify God, the concept of God being angry with us for our actions can be very persuasive.

3. In this sense, Process Theology can think of a God that is angry because we make bad choices and suffers with us

or may be angry because of the consequences of those choices.

4. BUT – In Process Theology we would not consider that God deliberately caused our suffering as a punishment.

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important

Question – Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

9


1. Process Theology sees atonement theology in a completely

different way. 2. Process Theology recognizes in atonement the “scapegoat”

theory of René Girard in which there can be psychological benefit to those frozen by guilt to be forgiven and made

whole by the sacrifice of Jesus as the ultimate scapegoat. 3. Process Theology also recognizes the human tendency to find

“scapegoats” and the power of substitution theology to protect us against unhealthy “scapegoating.”

4. BUT – Process Theology also warns against the possibility of misunderstanding and misuse of “scapegoats,” atonement

theology and substitution theology. †Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important


10


NO. But suffering can be the result of God’s natural laws.http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/nov/28/dumb-ways-to-die-video

11

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem2. Suffering is an inherent consequence of sin:

1. Sin of one person against another causes suffering to the victim of

that sin. 2. The Old Testament profit Amos was particularly incensed by the

social injustices inflicted on poor and defenseless in society by

the sins of the rich and powerful.

3. Cain sins against God by killing his brother Abel, and Abel suffers

because of Cain’s sin. 4. Joseph suffers at the hands of his brothers who sell him into

slavery. 5. In Judges 19:22-24 a “concubine” is sacrificed for gang rape to

protect the hospitality toward a stranger. 6. David has Uriah killed to protect his sin against Bathsheba (2

Samuel 10). 7. Jesus states in the Beatitudes that we will be judged by the way we

treat the “least of them” and suffering of the “least of them” is

the result of the sins of others.

†Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question

– Why We Suffer, Harper One, 2008.

12


2. Suffering is an inherent consequence of sin:

1. Process Theology agrees that suffering is an inherent

consequence of sin but does not explain all suffering. 2. Part of God’s persuasive power is the inherent

consequences of sin. 3. The Bible passages quoted are all important in God’s

persuasive power as understood in Process Theology. †Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most


13


3. Suffering is inflicted by Satan on those who follow God:

1. The major Old Testament example is Job who suffers greatly

from Satan because of his devotion to God. 2. The New Testament has many examples of martyrs suffering

because of their devotion to God. 3. Peter tells us to rejoice when we suffer for Christ (1 Peter

3:13-21; 4:12-16). 4. Similar ideas are expressed by Paul in Philippians 1:20-30.

5. Some interpret the whole book of Revelation as a struggle between Satan and God in which Satan inflicts suffering on

those who follow God.


14


3. Suffering is inflicted by Satan on those who

follow God:

1. Process Theology recognizes that part of God’s persuasive power is to recognize that we are sometimes persecuted for doing the right thing.

2. Process Theology understands that not only can there be value in personifying God, but also in personifying as Satan

those things that get in the way of us following God. 3. Process Theology can even see benefit in carrying this

personification to the point of a war between God and

Satan – as long as we recognize the limitations of such a personification.



15


4. Suffering is used by God for redemptive purposes:

1. The basic theme of the story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 is that

God saved the people of Israel through the suffering of Joseph.

2. The story of the Exodus can be understood as the suffering of God’s people at the hands of the Pharaoh to bring about

their redemption in the “promised land.” 3. In the New Testament, Jesus is told of Lazarus’ illness, but stays

away for two days allowing Lazarus to suffer and die so “the son of God may be glorified” (John 11:4).

4. Of course, the ultimate New Testament redemption through suffering is the salvation of all people through the suffering

and death of Jesus.



16


4. Suffering is used by God for redemptive purposes:

1. Process Theology recognizes that suffering can indeed be

redemptive. 2. But Process Theology would never support the idea that

God would deliberately inflict suffering for redemptive purposes.

3. Process Theology would instead suggest that God draws us to make the best of the suffering that comes our way.

4. God abhors our suffering, shares in our suffering and calls us to grow from that suffering.


17


5. Suffering is a test of God’s people:

1. One explanation of Job’s suffering is as a result of God

testing him, or at least God allowing Satan to test him. (Note: Job is a book made by combining the work of two authors with

two different explanations of suffering. The explanation of the other author is covered in explanation 6).

2. Abraham suffered when he was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of his devotion to God (Genesis 22).

3. Some specific Old Testament versus that refer to God testing us include Deut 8:16; 13:3, Judges 2:22; 3:1-4, 2 Chron 32:31,

Psalm 11:4-5; 17:3; 26:2; 66:10; 105:19; 139:23, Prov 17:3; 27:21, Isa 48:10, and Jer 11:20; 12:3; 17:10; 20:12.

4. New Testament versus that refer to God testing us include: Rom 5:4, 2 Cor 2:9; 8:2, 1 Thess 2:4, Heb 2:18; 11:17, James

1:2-4, 1 Pet 1:7; 4:12 and Rev 3:10.



18


5. Suffering is a test of God’s people:

1. Process Theology recognizes that it can be useful and

comforting at times to think that our suffering is a test of our love and our dedication to being right with God.

2. But Process Theology would never support the idea that God would deliberately inflict suffering as a test.

3. Process Theology would instead suggest that God draws us to make the best of the suffering that comes our way.

4. God abhors our suffering, shares in our suffering and supports us in moving through that suffering.



19

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem6. Suffering is a mystery only understood by God:

1. Ehrman uses a detailed discussion of two Old Testament books, Job and Ecclesiastes, to illustrate this little understood

explanation of suffering. 2. Job consists of a part written in poetic form and a part written in

prose form that have been melded together. Ehrman’s main

point is that while God deals with Job according to his merit in the prose part, in the poetic part God does not deal with Job on his merit and is not bound to and Job’s “suffering remains a

mystery that cannot be fathomed or explained” (page 164). 3. In the book of Ecclesiastes the mystery explanation is

hammered in plain and clear – Ehrman describes Ecclesiastes as

an “anti-wisdom book in the sense that the insights it gives run contrary to the traditional views of a book like Proverbs, which insists that life is basically meaningful and good” (page

189).


20

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem6. Suffering is a mystery only understood by God:

4. Ehrman notes that the author of Ecclesiastes views life as

often meaningless, “and in the end, all of us – wise and

foolish, righteous and wicked, rich and poor – all of

us die. And that’s the end of the story” (page 190).

(Vanity of vanities, says the teacher, vanity of vanities! All

is vanity).

5. Ehrman states that “the author of Ecclesiastes is explicit

that God does not reward the righteous with wealth and

prosperity. Why then is there suffering? He doesn’t know. And he is the ‘wisest man’ ever to have lived! We should

take a lesson from this. Despite all our attempts, suffering sometimes defies explanation” (page 195).



21


6. Suffering is a mystery only understood by God:

1. Process Theology recognizes that we do not fully understand

God or our universe, so we would expect some suffering is a mystery only understood by God.

2. But Process Theology would always work to understand suffering better and work to alleviate suffering as much

as humanly possible. 3. Process Theology trusts that God abhors our suffering,

shares in our suffering, works to alleviate our suffering, and supports us in moving through that suffering.



22

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem7. Suffering is real and abhorrent to God, and God will

correct everything in the “end time”:

1. Ehrman devotes two chapters (7 & 8) to what he calls the apocalyptic explanation of suffering.

2. Ehrman argues that this apocalyptic view harkens back to

Assyrian religions, but is most fully developed in the Old

Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament

book of Revelation.

3. The apocalyptic view is taught by Seventh Day Adventists,

by Jehovah Witnesses, and by many evangelical protestants and fundamentalists.

4. The popular “Left Behind” series and the idea of the

“Rapture” are all part of the apocalyptic view.



23

Bart Ehrman: God’s Problem7. Suffering is real and abhorrent to God, and God will

correct everything in the “end time”:

5. The majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholic and most

mainline protestant churches) do not interpret Daniel or Revelation as a prophecy but rather see them as explanations of events that happened

previous to their writing.

6. For some, the “End Time” will result in the destruction of earth and

righteous will be rewarded by rapture into heaven and the evil will

be banished with Satan to Hell. 7. For others, earth will be restored to the garden of Eden and the

righteous will live on this new earth (although in some interpretations

saints will go to heaven while sinners who believe in Jesus will stay

on earth in an earthly paradise but those who reject Jesus will go to

hell).

8. But in all the apocalyptic views, suffering is to be expected until

all is set right at the end time.


24


7. Suffering is real and abhorrent to God and God will correct everything at the “end time” :

1. Process Theology recognizes that it can be comforting to those who have lost all hope in this life to believe that our suffering is a real, abhorrent to God and will be corrected at the “end time”.

2. But Process Theology warns that this explanation of suffering

can be misused to prevent people from trying to correct injustices now.

3. Even worse, some misuse “end time” theology to actively assist in causing the “end time” to come by supporting, for example, wars between Israel and the Palestine.



25

Process Theology: God’s Problem

8. Some suffering is inherent in the fact we are living

beings – not inanimate objects:

1. Process Theology recognizes the latest scientific information

on what is life (see Addy Pross, What is Life? How Chemistry

Becomes Biology, Oxford, 2012.)

2. Life is like a river or a fountain: The water molecules are

constantly changing – but the river or fountain remains.

3. Life is characterize by self-replicating objects balanced by

recycling (death) of those objects. †Addy Pross, What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford, 2012.

26


8. Some suffering is inherent in the fact we are living beings –

not inanimate objects:

1. For example, every cell in your body is dividing to make replicas

which then die and are recycled – yet you experience yourself as a whole despite the fact that the cells that make up your body are constantly changing.

2. Living things must die! If your cells do not die at the same rate they are created through replication – you would either shrink or

grow.

3. Cancer is an example of unchecked cell growth.

4. Atrophy is an example of replication not keeping up with recycleing.

†Addy Pross, What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford, 2012.

27


8. Some suffering is inherent in the fact we are living beings – not inanimate objects:

1. Similarly, we must die!

2. As individuals we experience the death of a friend or loved one and suffer.

3. God is there with us in this suffering – helping us to understand that

death is necessary.

4. Jesus’ death was also necessary – but maybe we missed the point!

†Addy Pross, What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford, 2012.

28

Process Theology on Suffering

• God’s love is very much like ours, but less self-centered and infinitely greater.

• God fully shares the pain of the person with the skinned knee – God even shares the experience of the damaged cells themselves, as well as the more complex and conscious pain of the person.

• God has far more motive than we do to prevent or ease suffering in the world.

• Allowing for that portion of the world’s pain that may finally produce greater good, there is still a whole world full of needless and terrible suffering that God would wish to prevent.

29

Process Theology on Suffering

So why then doesn’t God prevent suffering?

• Process theology answers that God wants to prevent

suffering, but cannot.

• Later we shall discuss how God acts in the world, but for

now suffice it to say that God must act through

persuasion, not coercion.

• Process Theology states that God is constantly doing

everything within divine power to prevent and ease

needless and destructive suffering.

30

Logical Consequences of

Traditional Theology

What do we mean when we say?

• Thank God for saving those 12 people in that plane crash (God didn’t want to save the 104 that died?).

• If God could have save all 116, but only saved 12 – is this a good and loving God?

• Process Theology states that God is constantly doing everything within divine power to prevent and ease needless and destructive suffering – but God’s power is persuasive, not coercive.

31

Logical Consequences of

Traditional TheologyDoes God have different ethics from us?

• If we see someone being raped, don’t we have a moral duty to help? Why under Traditional Theology where God is all powerful, does God not stop all rapes?

• Medicine has wiped out many diseases (smallpox, measles, typhoid, typhus, tetanus, malaria, diphtheria and polio to name a few) – Under Traditional Theology – why did God wait for humans to do this?

• Process Theology explains all of this: God is constantly doing everything within divine power to prevent and ease needless and destructive suffering – but God’s power is persuasive, not coercive.

32

Chapter 2: God’s Love and Our Suffering

Summary of Chapter 2

• The Bible explains suffering in many ways each with

much truth but each subject to misinterpretation and

misuse

• Process Theology understands that GOD cannot

stop suffering – it is not possible and in some cases

not desirable.

• But God is always there as a resource in our

suffering both directly and through the people around

us and through our environment

33

Chapter 3: Love, Power, and

Relatedness

Real power comes from love and relatedness

• Traditional Theology stresses God’s unilateral

power

• Christ, however, demonstrated relational power

• The Christian concept of the Trinity is an attempt to

encompass both types of power

• Process Theology also encompasses both types

of power

34


RelatednessUnilateral Power

• The ability to effect others without being affected by them.

• Illustrated by the “pecking order” from the most powerful to the least powerful

• Classical Theology views divine omnipotence as perfect unilateral power

• The trinity is often interpreted as God the Father having unilateral power with Christ (God the son) having relational power

35


Relatedness

Relational Power

• The ability to be open, to be sensitive, to be in relationship with the world about us

• The ability to be “self-creative,” to take in a wide range of ideas, feelings, influences and experiences and create one’s own thoughts and feeling and decisions out of them.

• The ability to influence others by having first been influenced by them in a way that takes sensitive account of the needs and desires of others.

36


Relatedness

God is unchanging and immutable

• Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Psalm 102:25-27)

• And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12)

• Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

37


Relatedness

God is unchanging and immutable

• For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished. (Malachi 3:6)

• Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17)

• God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Numbers 23:19)

38


Relatedness

God changes his mind

• And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6:6)

• When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10)

• And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people. (Exodus 32:14)

39


Relatedness


• At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

40


Relatedness


• I regret that I made Saul king, for he has

turned back from following me, and has not

carried out my commands.’ Samuel was

angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.

(1 Samuel 15:11)

41


RelatednessGod bargains with Abraham

• And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” (Genesis 18:24-32)

42


Relatedness

For most of us these Bible versus do not pose a great

contradiction. But in Traditional Theology God is Unchanging and Immutable – Hence, the contradiction

must be explained:

1. Many explanations are used to explain the apparent

contradiction. 2. One explanation is in the Trinity in which the substance of

God is unchanging and immutable but in the person of Jesus Christ there is relatedness.

3. The text implies that the heresy of “Patripassianism” is the belief that God the Father Suffers, but the heresy is

more complicated and related to the nature of the Trinitarian model.

4. The Trinity is well developed and can explain the contradiction – but Process Theology explains it in a way

that for most people is much easier to understand.

43


RelatednessIn Process Theology, the explanation is very simple

(LOVE):

1. God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16).

2. The essence or substance of God, i.e.: love, never changes. 3. God could never stop loving, or love us less on one day than

another. 4. In Biblical language, God’s love is steadfast, sure,

trustworthy, immutable and unchanging. 5. God’s love is always responsive – tuned to the different

needs of each entity in the universe and responsive to those needs.

6. God’s love and responsiveness never changes, but God is perfectly relational being affected by and affecting all

entities in the universe.

44


Relatedness

In Process Theology, the explanation is very simple

(POWER):


2. Love is far more powerful than coercion.

3. God may well have some unilateral and/or direct

power in the universe, but God’s true power comes

from love and is expressed through pursuasion.

4. In Biblical language, God is omnipotent when it

comes to love, the most powerful thing in the

universe.

45


RelatednessIn Process Theology, the explanation is very simple

(RELATEDNESS):


2. Love is RELATIONAL. 3. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those

who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:18)

4. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and

foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the

wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:24) 5. In Biblical language, For God so loved the world that he

gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)

46


RelatednessSummary: We are related to everything in the universe whether we like it or not – That relationship can be based on God (love) or on selfishness!

Climate Change: Will we react with LOVE or with SELFISHNESS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHP9Rh-ooh0&feature=youtu.be

47

NEXT WEEK

• Chapters 4 and 5 of the text

• Now time for discussion

• NOTE: Class web page at:

http://class-notes.us

http://class-notes.us/

Documents

Process Theology Based on the textbook