There seem to be recent collaborations between process theism and the Emergent Movement [EM hereafter]. Claremont School of Theology (CST), an institution that intentionally and directly promotes process theism as its major research project, welcomes the potential for EM to reinvigorate mainline Protestantism. Dr. Philip Clayton, a major Claremont theologian, seems to associate himself with EM, as he speaks in conferences relevant to EM and blogs about EM. In addition, Brian McLaren, one of the major founding parents of EM, is a CST Trustee. Clearly, such collaborations are taking place. I think that they are healthy collaborations that can hopefully reinvigorate mainline Protestantism. While process theism can provide a robust and a coherent set of theological contents that is consistent with the intellectual goals of EM, EM can provide a sense of cultural relevance to the culturally outdated mainliners, who are generally welcoming of intellectually sophisticated theologies (including process theism). Although I am not an expert on process theism or EM, I just want to express what I currently think about these two forces in Protestant theology.
Although I am sympathetic to process theism and EM, I don’t think that one necessarily needs to incorporate philosophies, such as Whitehead’s metaphysics and postmodern philosophies, which are completely foreign to the biblical faith and biblically-based theologies. Theology does not need to live under the mercy of philosophy. The Bible and biblically-based theologies in the history of Christian thought can sufficiently shape the kind of theology and spirituality that has an element of process theism and an element of EM combined. I don’t think that there is a need to really take seriously Alfred N. Whitehead’s speculative metaphysics and postmodernist critiques of culture to really come up with a more sensible alternative to the irrational literalism of conservative evangelicalism and the irrelevant intellectualism of liberal Protestantism. Honestly, I think that the Bible can be read as if it favors the essential claims of process theism and a commonsensical case can be made for the correctness of the complaints of the Emergent thinkers, like Peter Rollins, about the current state of Protestantism without couching such complaints in postmodernist lingo. The unnecessary extra-biblical sources of these two groups in Protestantism alienate the two movements from the possibility of reaching out to the general public. Furthermore, many Anglophone philosophers are suspicious or critical of Whiteheadian kind of metaphysics and anything that has to do with postmodernism. I am aware that they are even more suspicious or critical of the Bible. But the attempt to incorporate another intellectually controversial component might not help in establishing the intellectual credibility of theology.
I think that the biblical narrative, taken as a whole, does not affirm classical theism. In classical theism, we find a God that is fashioned after the ideals of the most ambitious human speculations and imaginations. In classical theism, borrowing from Blaise Pascal, you end up with the god of the philosophers, not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not seem to be absolutely detached from or unaffected by human affairs. The God of the Bible seems to be genuinely engaged in luring human history to follow its divinely desired course. Such God seems to undergo a process of self-realization in the ongoing divine-human partnerships. I don’t think that such understanding of God is foreign to the biblical narrative, even if you want to read the narrative literally. There is no need to complicate Christian theology with the metaphysical baggage from Whitehead. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, such as Ecclesiastes and Psalms, and even the radical teachings of the synoptic Jesus can provide insights that correspond to postmodernist values. Ecclesiastes, for instance, embraces and even celebrates uncertainties, doubts, meaninglessness of human existence, the ugly faces of realities, the terribleness of truths, etc. Psalms laments the injustices or unfairness of human life. I think that the Bible has adequate resources to raise the postmodern concerns without the unbearable pomposities of postmodernists. I don’t think that pomposity is a prerequisite for being provocative.
I am aware that philosophy somehow played big roles in the development of the history of Christian thought. We can easily find examples of major Christian theologians who use philosophy as the framework for theology: Platonist Augustine, Aristotelian Aquinas, Cartesian Le Grand, Existentialist Tillich, Heidegerrian Bultmann, Whiteheadian Cobb, Postmodernist Caputo, and others. Don’t get me wrong: I have deep respect for these theologians. However, there are also examples of major Christian (and Jewish) theologians who use the Bible as the ultimate framework for theology. Several figures come to mind: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Barth, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and G. Ernest Wright. I am not advocating a biblically based theology that is similar to the fundamentalist evangelicals. The fact that there are non-fundamentalist Christians shows that there are other ways of reading the Bible that go beyond the literalism of fundamentalists. I think that there has to be a way to construct a kind of a biblically based theology that embraces the essential elements of process theism and EM. I am aware that open theism, for instance, is a more biblical alternative to process theism. Open theism that is combined with the essential insights of narrative theology sounds appealing to me. But, unlike process theism, open theism fails to fully admit the limitations in God’s abilities by characterizing such limitations as self-imposed. It appears to me that open theists, or at least some of them, are really process theists in evangelical clothing. Open theists, or at least some of them, seem to succumb to the pressures from conservative evangelicals, who are the self-proclaimed guardians of the Christian truth.
Although I am sympathetic to process theism and EM, I don’t think that one necessarily needs to incorporate philosophies, such as Whitehead’s metaphysics and postmodern philosophies, which are completely foreign to the biblical faith and biblically-based theologies. Theology does not need to live under the mercy of philosophy. The Bible and biblically-based theologies in the history of Christian thought can sufficiently shape the kind of theology and spirituality that has an element of process theism and an element of EM combined. I don’t think that there is a need to really take seriously Alfred N. Whitehead’s speculative metaphysics and postmodernist critiques of culture to really come up with a more sensible alternative to the irrational literalism of conservative evangelicalism and the irrelevant intellectualism of liberal Protestantism. Honestly, I think that the Bible can be read as if it favors the essential claims of process theism and a commonsensical case can be made for the correctness of the complaints of the Emergent thinkers, like Peter Rollins, about the current state of Protestantism without couching such complaints in postmodernist lingo. The unnecessary extra-biblical sources of these two groups in Protestantism alienate the two movements from the possibility of reaching out to the general public. Furthermore, many Anglophone philosophers are suspicious or critical of Whiteheadian kind of metaphysics and anything that has to do with postmodernism. I am aware that they are even more suspicious or critical of the Bible. But the attempt to incorporate another intellectually controversial component might not help in establishing the intellectual credibility of theology.
I think that the biblical narrative, taken as a whole, does not affirm classical theism. In classical theism, we find a God that is fashioned after the ideals of the most ambitious human speculations and imaginations. In classical theism, borrowing from Blaise Pascal, you end up with the god of the philosophers, not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not seem to be absolutely detached from or unaffected by human affairs. The God of the Bible seems to be genuinely engaged in luring human history to follow its divinely desired course. Such God seems to undergo a process of self-realization in the ongoing divine-human partnerships. I don’t think that such understanding of God is foreign to the biblical narrative, even if you want to read the narrative literally. There is no need to complicate Christian theology with the metaphysical baggage from Whitehead. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, such as Ecclesiastes and Psalms, and even the radical teachings of the synoptic Jesus can provide insights that correspond to postmodernist values. Ecclesiastes, for instance, embraces and even celebrates uncertainties, doubts, meaninglessness of human existence, the ugly faces of realities, the terribleness of truths, etc. Psalms laments the injustices or unfairness of human life. I think that the Bible has adequate resources to raise the postmodern concerns without the unbearable pomposities of postmodernists. I don’t think that pomposity is a prerequisite for being provocative.
I am aware that philosophy somehow played big roles in the development of the history of Christian thought. We can easily find examples of major Christian theologians who use philosophy as the framework for theology: Platonist Augustine, Aristotelian Aquinas, Cartesian Le Grand, Existentialist Tillich, Heidegerrian Bultmann, Whiteheadian Cobb, Postmodernist Caputo, and others. Don’t get me wrong: I have deep respect for these theologians. However, there are also examples of major Christian (and Jewish) theologians who use the Bible as the ultimate framework for theology. Several figures come to mind: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Barth, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and G. Ernest Wright. I am not advocating a biblically based theology that is similar to the fundamentalist evangelicals. The fact that there are non-fundamentalist Christians shows that there are other ways of reading the Bible that go beyond the literalism of fundamentalists. I think that there has to be a way to construct a kind of a biblically based theology that embraces the essential elements of process theism and EM. I am aware that open theism, for instance, is a more biblical alternative to process theism. Open theism that is combined with the essential insights of narrative theology sounds appealing to me. But, unlike process theism, open theism fails to fully admit the limitations in God’s abilities by characterizing such limitations as self-imposed. It appears to me that open theists, or at least some of them, are really process theists in evangelical clothing. Open theists, or at least some of them, seem to succumb to the pressures from conservative evangelicals, who are the self-proclaimed guardians of the Christian truth.
Comments