Thursday, November 21, 2013

Process theology

The subject came up recently, and I've been trying to learn a little about it.

If I understand process theology's principles correctly, one foundation is that existence means to be in relation. When this is applied to God, it seems to contradict classical theology with its "aseity" although (forgive the proverb) the devil is in the details. The Christian Trinity exists both in Himself and in relation with Himself, and the source of relationship is within the trinity, but you still have contradiction for simpler monotheisms. Some of the P.T. proponents seem to be claiming that God is compelled to create as a requirement of His own existence--in order to exist in relation.

In addition, some assert that God does not know the future. IIUC, this is not the common predestinarian confusions that mix human experience with eternal views of time. Instead they are asking what are the implications of co-creation. I think this simply shifts the paradox to a new corner--which of the infinite set of possible histories do we agree to make. Their pop expression "does not know the future" is not helpful.

Why would we want to try to redefine the ground of existence as relationship? The first thing that comes to mind is the amazing success this sort of thing has had in mathematics. Pick up any advanced math reference, and it starts out describing mappings (morphisms). Category Theory is a hot topic, and a very powerful tool. Spending the effort to make a description of a physics law independent of the coordinate system you pick makes some symmetries much clearer. Analyzing relationships is what much of modern math does.

Of course we exist in relation, but that's not the same as saying everything must. Which is why I thought of math first.

I think the Creator/creation divide is so great that the same terms in the language don't mean the same things when applied to each side (I notice that the Chalcedonian debates were followed by a rise in apophatic theology: it seems fitting that after arguments over fine distinctions there be an admission that sometimes words mislead.) So I'm wary, even though I've written about God as a suffering servant myself.

The process theology field spreads over a moderately wide range, and the theologians I ran into first may not be typical. They seem to elevate the human view of the relationship to be a peer to God's view, which of course makes the current political and social fashion the next step in the revelation of the relationship between God and man.

No comments: