Replies

I agree with you that a re-enchantment of our age would be necessary. Taylor has in his book ‘A Secular Age’ meticulously and rather convincingly described how the western world was gradually de-enchanted in the past centuries. The question which has kept me busy throughout my life has been in which way this could be achieved. To realize and express the necessity of this re-enchantment is one thing, to have an idea in which way it could be started is another.

I agree with Johannes Jörg, our fellow student that we live in a pathological societal condition. Kimberer has in het book ‘Braiding sweetgrass’ beautifully described how far the western world has grown apart from the indigenous world of reciprocity with respect for all living creatures. During the reading of her book I was moved to tears and since then I love nature more than ever I did, I bow to the ground, thank Mother Earth for all the gifts with which she surrounds us. To be aware of this beauty and to be grateful is one thing but how this sense of awe and wonder could be made more common is another.

I agree with Christie Byers, our fellow student that it would be hopeful that this extraordinary time we are living through is the beginning of the end of the impoverishment. Pope Franciscus has written a deeply religious encycliek ‘Laudate si’ , I have devoured the content and I agree with most of what he adressed to more than a billion believers. And I had hoped that this would start something new in our world but after 10 years business is not only as usual but has become much worse.

I agree with our beloved John Cobb in what he wrote in his book Jesus’ Abba, the God who has not failed, about the omnipotence of God and his questions about it. I have throughout my life felt the deep responsibility we have as human beings; that was the reason that I became a medical missionary as my early profession and in which I could save thousands of life. I still feel this responsibility but do not know how to make it most effective.

I agree in may aspects with Sheri Kling and what I learned from her lessons about Process thought and World Religions. And these views have helped me a lot in reconsidering my opinion about the uniqueness of the Christian religion and has moved me more into a re- evaluation of animism than ever.

I agreee partly with our lecturer Edward Kelly in what he said about the importance of mysticism where he regrets its treatment by modern Western science and philosophy which is in his opinion nothing short of scandalous. The book of Evelyn Underhill ‘Mysticism’ (1911)has deeply influenced me and I am still reading in it. One interesting quote (p. 406):
‘ I do not care whether the consciousness be that of artist or musician, striving to catch and fix some aspect of the heavenly light or music and denying all other aspects in order to devote themselves to this; or of the humble servant of science purging his intellect that he may look upon her secrets with innocence of eye; whether the higher reality be perceived in the terms of religion, beauty, suffering,of human love, of goodness, or of truth. However widely these forms of transcendence may seem tomdiffer, the mystic experience is the key toothed all. All in their different ways are exhibitions here and now of the Eternal; extensions of man’s consciousness which involve calls to higher centers of life. Through each man may arise to freedom and take his place in the great movement of the universe.

I agree with Tripp Fuller in what he published on October 26 2025: Finding our way forward in a post-religious age. He calls attention there for Whitehead’s emphasis on the divine presence in and value of all things. In this he comes close to Kimberer and the animistic world view which I mentioned before

I could continue to mention and quote others who have influenced my life deeply: Jane Goodal, Karen Armstrong, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, John Newall ( The great search), Philip Clayton, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Bonhoeffer ….

Hopefully my question to the lecturers and all the students is clear: to know and realize all these thoughts and ideas and theories is one thing, but what can be do with them, how can we use them to come closer to a re-enchantment of humanity. That is another thing. I will be very grateful to get as many reactions and suggestions as possible. So that I can continue with my journey forward

Thank you, Charles for your long and interesting reaction. The article about ‘Process Thought and the Hopi Universe’ to which you referred was especially worthwhile for me and led me to buy the book of Suzuki and Knudtson, Wisdom of the Elders (1992).
I hope in the next session we will hear more about the relatedness between Indigenous wisdom and Process Thought and hope that the lecturer does not restrict himself to the American Indigenes but also includes other Continents

Dear Charles,
Your reaction is very interesting for me and evokes a lot of questions. However first I come with only two:
1. Your caveat.
Where did Griffin write about these forms of pluralism? And do you know more literature about this topic which has my profound interest. From where comes your caveat? Do you not see that it also could be a benefit for the world to have one global religion with components of the different world religions? Is it the fear of loss of theodiversity (Vitebsky, who uses this term in the same vein as a loss of biodiversity))?

2. Relate4d to the first question: Elective affinity
What I understand is that you feel there is a reciprocal attraction etc. between Buddhism and process thought. And therefore they can influence each other positively. I feel the same with the relation between Indigenous (Traditional African) ‘religion’ and process thought. At the same time there are many differences between them, e.g. the role of and respect for ancestors which are essential in the first and neglected in the last (?). For many Christians in Africa there is a dilemma as what to do with their ancestors. Broadly speaking there are two attitudes: On the one hand ‘Make a complete rupture with the past’ (Birgit Meyer) and remove everything which has to do with the ancestors because they are related to demonic spirits. And on the other hand there are people (theologians and politicians) who feel the ancestors belong essentially to the African culture and to advise to throw them away is a form of modern and Christian colonialism. To the first group belongs the great majority of the modern Christians/neo-pentecostals which have grown exponentially in Africa (and Asia). (In writing this I realize that the same problem which I encounter and describe here will be faced in many parts of Asia. The well-known anthropologist Vitebsky has written a book called Living without the dead about this phenomenon in which he describes that he has seen in his fieldwork of 30 years how in one generation the veneration of ancestors in an area in India completely disappeared through the missionization of Baptists)
My question now is how- given this elective affinity- in your opinion these two forms of thinking could enrich each other. If you – or other students have any idea or suggestion I will be grateful. Maybe in the last session about Process thought and Indigenous/ Traditional ways we will get more information about this topic as well

thank you (see later)

Dear Lu Wei-dong,
Your reaction sounds very interesting to me, although I do not exactly know what you mean when you write : ‘I still want to push the boundary of thinking the need and possibility of disseminating process theology as a new “religion” or spiritual wisdom in a more conscious way’.
Similar thoughts have been in my mind for years but up till now I have not succeeded :-). In my view the future of religion globally is the approach of processphilosophy- and also the future for our planet. One of the problems however is that in my experience this theory is difficult to explain to ordinary people/christians and others (also in the academic world in Europe where Whitehead is hardly known, let it be respected). E.g. as soon as I come with the idea that God is nòt almighty, my interlocutor becomes angry, disappointed etc. and stops the discussion, meaning that we are so biased and fixated in our traditional ways of thinking that …. only God can change it (with his lure ??) (But in the meantime I do not stop trying my best to explain Whitehead’s thought..)

My question is: In which way do you (want to) push(!)? Only personally in your own thinking or also in your environment? and what is your experience?

more questions can come depending on your reaction ..