Replies

As the title of the old book says, “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

As a fellow rural guy (originally) I have a long-term view of what’s happening to rural (corn belt) america. I grew up in the Illinois corn belt and then lived in the Iowa corn belt until I was 55. The number one issue in the Midwest is the relentless increase of farm sizes over the last hundred years due to farm automation. The average farm operation was a quarter section in 1900, and two quarter sections in 2000. (That’s 160 acres up to 320 acres, for you city slickers.)

Iowa population rose from 2.2 to 2.9 million in that century, but the number of rural residents fell from 1.8 to 0.9 million as the farm size doubled. Also, the number of Iowa congressional seats fell from seven to four as the rest of the country grew much faster. Most of my computer science students at Iowa State University invariably left the state to find employment.

Chances are farm operations will double again in size this century. Fewer, more automated farms need fewer supporting services and employment opportunities continue to dwindle. Not surprisingly, Iowa has morphed from blue to deep red. As long as jobs are important/necessary, states like Iowa will feel the pain and look for someone to blame.

Bill, Here you go. -George

Great! While Cobb and Griffin largely sideline the Trinity in *Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition*, other process theologians—particularly **Joseph Bracken**—have attempted to reconstruct the doctrine within a process framework. Below is a comparison of approaches, along with key texts where these thinkers engage (or don’t engage) with Trinitarian thought.

—

### **1. Joseph Bracken: A Process-Trinitarian Synthesis**
Bracken (a Jesuit process theologian) argues that Whitehead’s metaphysics *can* accommodate the Trinity if reinterpreted through a **societal model** (where the Trinity is a dynamic community of interdependent persons).

#### **Key Works:**
– *The Triune Symbol: Persons, Process, and Community* (1985)
– *The One in the Many: A Contemporary Reconstruction of the God-World Relationship* (2001)

#### **Bracken’s Process-Trinitarian Model:**
– **Rejects classical substance metaphysics** (like Cobb/Griffin) but retains “personhood” by redefining the Trinity as a **”society of actual occasions”** (a Whiteheadian term for interdependent events).
– The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct but *internally related* sub-societies within God’s overarching “field of activity.”
– **Uses Whitehead’s “extensive continuum”** to describe the Trinity as a **non-hierarchical perichoresis** (mutual indwelling) of divine persons.
– **Critique of Cobb/Griffin:** Bracken explicitly notes that their neglect of the Trinity leaves process theology vulnerable to charges of “unitarianism” or pantheism (*The One in the Many*, p. 142).

—

### **2. Other Process Theologians on the Trinity**
#### **(a) Charles Hartshorne**
– **Dismisses the Trinity** as a “confusing metaphor” (*Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes*, 1984).
– His *dipolar theism* (God as “supremely relative and supremely absolute”) has no need for three persons.

#### **(b) Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki**
– Engages the Spirit more than the Trinity (*God-Christ-Church*, 1982), but like Cobb/Griffin, frames the Spirit as God’s immanent activity rather than a distinct person.

#### **(c) Robert Mesle**
– Argues that process theology should **abandon the Trinity entirely** as incoherent (*Process Theology*, 1993).

—

### **3. Key Differences: Cobb/Griffin vs. Bracken**
| Feature | Cobb & Griffin (*Process Theology*) | Joseph Bracken (*The One in the Many*) |
|———————–|———————————–|—————————————|
| **Trinity’s Status** | Marginal (mentioned once) | Central, reconstructed metaphysically |
| **Model of God** | Dipolar (primordial/consequent) | Tripolar (Father/Son/Spirit as societies) |
| **Personhood** | Downplayed (God as abstract “creativity”) | Retained via societal analogy |
| **Christology** | Jesus as “creative transformation” | Logos as second person of Trinity |

—

### **4. Why Bracken’s Approach Matters**
Bracken appeals to Christians who want process thought but fear it undermines orthodoxy. His model:
– Preserves **personhood** (vs. Cobb/Griffin’s impersonal “creative-responsive love”).
– Aligns with **social Trinitarianism** (e.g., Jürgen Moltmann).
– Resolves the charge that process theology is “unitarian.”

—

### **Criticisms of Process Trinitarianism**
1. **Whitehead’s God is arguably unitarian**—the primordial/consequent natures don’t require three persons.
2. **Perichoresis in process terms?** Classical Trinity hinges on *ousia* (substance), which process thought rejects.
3. **Is Bracken’s model ad hoc?** Some argue he forces Whitehead into a Trinitarian mold.

—

### **Conclusion**
Cobb and Griffin’s de-emphasis of the Trinity reflects process theology’s broader tendency to prioritize metaphysical coherence over dogma. Bracken’s work shows that a process-friendly Trinity is *possible*, but it remains a minority view.

**For further reading:**
– Bracken’s *The One in the Many* (2001), Ch. 7.
– Critique: Philip Clayton’s *Adventures in the Spirit* (2007) on process theology’s “Trinitarian deficit.”

Would you like a deeper dive into how Bracken’s societal model works metaphysically?

To document my understanding of Cobb and Griffin, here’s what DeepSeek says about the deemphasis of the trinity

In *Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition* (1976), Cobb and Griffin rarely mention the Trinity explicitly, and when they do, it’s often in passing or with a clear de-emphasis. Here are key passages and sections that illustrate their approach:

—

### **1. Absence of the Trinity in Key Discussions**
The term “Trinity” does not appear in the book’s index, and the doctrine is never systematically addressed. Instead, the focus is on God’s *dipolar nature* (primordial/consequent) and God’s relationality to the world—concepts that replace traditional Trinitarian metaphysics.

– **Chapter 3 (“God as Creative-Responsive Love”)** outlines God’s nature as “creative transformation” and “responsive love,” with no mention of Father, Son, or Spirit as distinct persons.
– **Chapter 4 (“God’s Power in the World”)** discusses divine persuasion (not coercion), again without invoking the Trinity.

—

### **2. Passages Implicitly Bypassing the Trinity**
**(a) Christology Without Trinitarianism (Chapter 5: “Jesus Christ”)**
– Cobb and Griffin reinterpret Jesus as the “paradigmatic embodiment of creative transformation” (p. 104) but frame this in terms of God’s *activity* rather than Jesus’ ontological relation to the Father or Spirit.
– They write:
> “The Logos incarnate in Jesus is the divine aim at relevant possibility for each occasion” (p. 107).
Here, “Logos” is a process of divine persuasion, not the second person of the Trinity.

**(b) The Holy Spirit as God’s Immanence (Chapter 6: “The Spirit and the Church”)**
– The Spirit is described as “the presence of God’s aims in the world” (p. 121), functionally equivalent to God’s *consequent nature* (the world’s impact on God). No Trinitarian language is used.
– Compare this to classical Pentecostal or Nicene formulations where the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis.

—

### **3. Explicit Marginalization of the Trinity**
The closest the book comes to addressing the Trinity directly is in **Chapter 7 (“The Two Natures of God”)**, where they critique classical theism’s “static” God and contrast it with process theology’s dynamic view.
– They note:
> “The doctrine of the Trinity, while not denied, is not central to our exposition” (p. 132).
This is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the book, and it’s dismissive.

—

### **4. Replacement with Dipolar Theism**
The entire book substitutes the Trinity with Whitehead’s **dipolar theism**:
– **Primordial Nature**: God’s eternal envisioning of possibilities (similar to “Father” as source, but impersonal).
– **Consequent Nature**: God’s temporal engagement with the world (akin to “Spirit” as immanent, but not a distinct person).
– Jesus is a unique manifestation of divine aims, not the eternal Son.

—

### **Why This Matters**
Cobb and Griffin’s avoidance of the Trinity aligns with process theology’s broader goals:
1. **Rejecting substance metaphysics** (the Trinity relies on “ousia” and “hypostasis,” which process thought rejects).
2. **Prioritizing relationality over personhood**—God’s relation to the world matters more than intra-divine relations.
3. **Ecumenical openness**—avoiding dogma that might exclude interfaith dialogue.

### **Contrast with Traditional Theology**
For comparison, Augustine’s *De Trinitate* or Karl Barth’s *Church Dogmatics* make the Trinity foundational. Cobb and Griffin’s silence speaks volumes.

Would you like analysis of how other process theologians (e.g., Joseph Bracken) attempt to reconcile the Trinity with process thought?

Bill, I think it’s the consequent nature of god that cherishes us. -George

PS. But be assured genAI makes mistakes, so take all answers with a grain of salt

MarySue, You say, “people figured that the outcome of foodstuffs was largely under their control and they didn’t have to negotiate with God anymore.”

We may not negotiate with God as much, production of our foodstuffs is a joint responsibility that we share with Mother Nature. If she provides too much rain (or too little) we learn about who has control.

You say further, “But, what if, like the indigenous, the fruits of the earth were not a commodity that had to be procured and secured, but an integral part of life itself.”

Seems to me that “procuring” has always been our lot, even in hunter-gatherers days. “Securing” probably came along with agriculture, but since eating has always been an integral part of life the “commodity” we call foodstuffs has always been crucial.

Mary Sue, Not sure I understand your use of the word commodity. In our times I think it means the raw materials to an industrial process. You correctly (imho) distinguish between our dominating and using (the rest of) nature for our physical “betterment” and the indigenous co-existing with the rest of nature. Is your point that our lives have become just more raw materials feeding the industrial culture? -George

Thanks for the pointers, Chris. I’ve stuck my nose into Bohm’s book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. I can see both similarities and differences. -George

Leslie et al, I will be balancing a family conflict with our class tomorrow. Hope to see you then. Here’s my trellis:

I have important book-reading memory. In fifth grade, I read a book about the world’s religion and had the reaction, “What?  There are other religions?!”  Sometime after that, a dignitary (the district superintendent) came to preach, and as we were shaking his hand on the way out, I asked, “How do we know Christianity is the right religion?” I suspect he wasn’t expecting that (or any) question from a 10-year-old, but he kindly said, “Well, we know it’s the best one.”  
 
My mother, devout Methodist, was asked as a child what she wanted to be when she grew up. She answered that she wanted to have a family and to be a church organist. As they say, the Lord works in mysterious ways, and shortly after we moved to a small village (population 450), the minister paid a call and said they needed an organist. She kept that job for 50 years. Many of my science friends left the church (where’s the science in immaculate conception?) but I thought that my mother was such a good person and religion was so important to her that there had to be more to it than that, so I hung on.

Of course I left the organized church from age 20 to age 40, but you could say I was an early version of “spiritual but not religious.” Nevertheless, when my wife wanted our first son baptized I said we should join up. We had good friends singing in the choir, so we joined that, too. About that time I read Joseph Campbell’s excellent four-volume history of mythology called “The Masks of God” and scales fell from my eyes.

Several years later we moved to DC-land and I morphed from a professor to a bureaucrat. We joined a small suburban Methodist church and after a year I offered a Sunday school class. Not Bible study, but mythology study. I was surprise how many signed up but not surprised by the few who wished I could be shown the instruments of torture 🙂

We left the Methodist church when the conservatives took over, but the the class continued, first in homes and then on zoom. This summer, many books and subjects later, we will complete our 29th year together. (Cobb and Griffin and Mesle were among our books.)

A friend and university colleague assumed the presidency of claremont school of theology earlier this century and invited me to join the board of trustees, which I did and remain one through his tenure. Two trips to claremont a year availed me the great good fortune of becoming a friend of John Cobb. I joined The Cobb Institute when it was formed and have been a groupie ever since.

Dennis, Thanks for sharing part of your personal history. Mine was more conventional than yours. Raised in a nice Methodist household, wandered from the organized church for 20 years (but not from religious concerns), returned as a liberal and an amateur theologian. -George

Bridging the gap between the philosophy of organism and evolution deniers sounds like a tall order to me.

I worry about the church(es) future. Whitehead is trying to save it by reforming it. Any church that denies science in general and evolution in particular is fighting a rear-guard action that they’re going to lose, I hope. But it’s a battle of centuries, not decades. There aren’t many flat earthers left nor earth-centered solar system folks; but I’m told that about 50% of Americans still don’t believe in evolution.

Thanks for the post, Dennis. I do try to say that one of the major differences between the science and process models is that science only does objective whereas process does both objective and subjective. The time-base of process versus the space-base of science is ripe for comparison and contrast. -George

Dennis, Here are my thoughts about your interesting questions. -George

Questions:
(1) Can Whitehead’s metaphysics be thought of as a theology?

I think Whitehead’s metaphysics (process philosophy) is a base for his Christian process theology. I think it is also a base for other world cultures.

(2) What is the meaning of a divine experience? Is it like having a mystical experience?

I think it’s (only) quantitatively different from our other experiences. That is, a peak experience.

(3) How often do Christian theologies change? Hosinski argues that no Christian theology that has endured has adopted a philosophy unchanged. (ibid.) Does this mean that Christian theology must change to endure?

Many Christians (who haven’t studied history) would argue that it has never changed since the divine revelation 2000 years ago. But the changing interpretation of the divine sacrifice is a good example of its theological change. Whitehead’s suggested “process change” to a god that can’t prevent evil strikes me as good and maybe even necessary if Christianity is to survive. But it’s an awfully big change.

(4) I hear the term grace used quite often. While I have an idea of what it means, I may be wrong.

I’ve had the same question over time. I currently think it means a gift from god. For example, when seeing a wretched person, thinking that, “there but for the grace of god go you or I.”

Here is my draft “human process model,” which is contrasted with a human science model.

The science model of me says that I’m made of cells (50 trillion of them), which are made of molecules (fifty trillion per cell), thus prioritizing substance over change. However, science also says that each year I excrete my weight in dead cells and my metabolism creates new ones to replace them. So I am a sequence of an ever-changing group of cells. Moreover, my complex brain continually changes its neural connections as life goes on. These changes in cells and in neural connections are caused by my environment as well as my internal life processes. Finally, science “recognizes” that we have subjective experience as well as objective ones. But (so far) science cannot explain our subjective experiences (eg, consciousness). Of course, science uses our subjective experience to study the objective world (including our objective experiences). That is, science divides the world into the objective observed and the subjective observer. Only recently has the quantum world caused questions to be raised about this dichotomy.

The process model of me prioritizes change over substance. The world is time-sliced very finely into moments of experience and I am seen as a sequence of these moments (a much finer slicing that my changing sequence of cells). In each of these moments of experience, the following things happen. First, the moment feels/senses, objectively and subjectively, the previous moments (both my previous moments and those of my environment), then the moment creates itself by taking a step into the future. Finally, the moment becomes only an objective part of history available to be felt/sensed by my and other subsequent moments.

What are the differences between these models? First and most obviously, the time-slicing is very different, causing the science model to appear as substances slowly changing over time and causing the process model to appear to be changing so rapidly that substance effectively disappears. However, the models are similar in holding that change happens because of sensing/feeling the previous state of world (both inner and outer states). Significantly, a process moment is a more complete model of human experience because it is simultaneously an objective and subjective experience. That is, the complete human experience is modeled by process philosophy, even though subjective part of experience cannot be explained by science. That is, a metaphysical model may contain speculative elements that science can’t explain.