“Open Panentheism” and Creation as Kenosis


Continuing Series -- Adventures in the Spirit
*Transforming Theology.

We have reached chapter 11 of Philip Clayton’s Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008), and with it the conclusion of Part 3, which has been an extended and deep definition of panentheism. Panentheism is simply put the idea that the world/universe exists within God, and yet God transcends the universe. Unlike pantheism, God and the universe are not one thing.

In chapter 10, Clayton laid out a philosophical defense of Trinitarianism as an appropriate expression of panentheism. With chapter 11, Clayton attempts to explore what he calls an “open panentheism,” a vision that may have some affinity with the ideas of the more evangelical Open Theists, such as John Sanders, Greg Boyd, and Clark Pinnock. I will confess to having an affinity myself to this perspective. In starting out the exploration of this version of panentheism, Clayton notes his differences with Whiteheadian Process Thought on the issue of Creation ex nihilo. In general followers of Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne have assumed that God and the universe are essentially co-eternal. Clayton, however, seeks to defend a form of panentheism that understands there to be a time when God was, but the universe was not. While embracing much of Process theology, he believes that there are resources within our classic Christian traditions that have value for the contemporary conversation – thus the importance of the conversation with the Open Theists.

Whitehead offers a cosmology that allows Clayton to speak coherently of the God-World relationship in scientific terms (in terms of cosmology). The problem that traditional views face is that they have been built upon obsolete scientific platforms, thus if we are to engage the modern world with any effect, we’ll need to move to new paradigms. With that in mind, he offers dipolar theism as an answer:

If God is dipolar, then the antecedent nature of God could serve the function of eternal grounding that we discussed above, and the consequent nature of God could then be involved in the sort of person-like interaction with creatures in the world that is crucial for theism. Only with a doctrine of God rich enough to include both poles, I suggest, can one understand the divine both as the ground of being and as an existing being (der Grund des Seins and das höchte Seiende). (p. 177).


With a dipolar theism as a way of understanding the nature of God, he seeks to respond to the challenges that science and philosophy present. These include the assumption of physics that we have before us a closed universe, one that is immune to outside causation, although there seems to be some possibility of loosening. That discussion, however, lies beyond my abilities. What we must deal with is the reality that our sense of an interventionist God clashes with modern science – including belief in supernatural interventions, “which would produce physical states different from those predicted by the laws of physics” (p. 178). Although I’m not a scientist and I don’t understand all of the ins and outs of the scientific arguments, I’m in agreement with Clayton when he says:

After all, science represents the most rigorous form of knowledge currently available to humans. It would be very unfortunate if being a theist meant having to reject that knowledge and the methods that produce it. Moreover, however great the veracity of divine words, it’s not clear that theology as a form of human reflection has the epistemic strength to stand against the carefully tested and verified conclusions of science (p. 178).


Thus, we should stay from espousing positions that clash directly with the sciences.

This situation may seem daunting, but the good news is that there is a way of understanding reality that doesn’t exclude the possibility of the divine. Thus, “there are good reasons to think that God could guide history according to the divine purposes, including God’s involvement in the Christ event, without our having to say that God breaks natural laws” (p. 179). To get there, however, there needs to be cooperation between process and open theists.

The challenges that lie before open panentheism are two: First, the question of whether the idea of a “self-limiting God is coherent” and able to address the problem of evil. And second, the question of whether creation ex nihilo is coherent. In answering these challenges posed by Process Theologians, Clayton agrees with the Open Theists that there needs to be a sense of “ontological difference between God and other agents.” We are finite, not infinite. We exist contingently. We also place our good above the divine – we’re self-centered? We need a context outside ourselves to exist – the divine persons don’t – they are self-sufficient within the divine nature. We are different, so the question is – how does God relate to us?

So, how does open panentheism work? Especially as it assumes the doctrine of creation out of nothing. In offering a kenotic theology, he accepts that traditional Trinitarian view that God is internally self-sufficient – God has always existed as trinity – three persons in community. But, he also assumes with process theology that divine love needs to be expressed outwardly that “the divine love is most fully manifested in real relatedness to agents who are “other” to God: finite in comparison with the divine infinity, and morally limited in contrast to the One who is essentially good” (p. 181). God is self-sufficient, but the fullness of God’s love needs to be expressed outwardly. There can be God without the world, but it was from love that God created as a free act.

How this all works is related to kenosis – self-emptying. In this view, creation is kenotic and relational.

God freely limited God’s infinite power in order to allow for the existence of non-divine agents. This self limitation is best understood as a self-emptying, insofar as God chose to limit or “empty Godself of” qualities that would otherwise seem to belong to the divine essence, such as omnipotence or the unlimited manifestation of the divine glory and agency (p. 182).


What I’m hearing here is that God, who is infinite in nature, must divest something of Godself to make room for the universe – there needs to be some room for contingency and free agency. But, having created the universe, God truly interacts with the creation, and thus, God is affected by this new creation. God is both eternal (Ground) and yet has a consequent nature – one that is open to the future.

The consequent nature of God then incorporates into the divine experience all the experiences of all things within the world at every instant. God in relation to the created world manifests love to the highest possible degree because God experiences (that is, incorporates into the divine experience) all the joys, pains, and sorrows of all created things at all times, and then offers back to them a continual leading “for the common good” (p. 183).


Creation ex nihilo and kenosis are two components that Open Theists, being more traditional in their theology, bring to the table – a more biblical form of theism. Open panentheists, however, draw from process theology for a philosophical foundation. The question remains – will this work. But as one who has struggled with process theology, this version of panentheism seems to be able to bring together a more biblical sense of God with a modern view of science and reality.

Of course when one reads deeply philosophical materials, as a preacher and not as one doing apologetics, the question is: will it preach? I’m still working on that question. But, I’m seeing the possibilities.

Comments

Mystical Seeker said…
From your description, it sounds like Clayton's views are really quite different from process theology in fundamental and important ways. The idea of creation ex nihilo means that God is omnipotent, or at least that God has the power to create something out of nothing, which process theology categorically rejects. Also, Clayton appears to be saying that God has massive amounts of power but choses to limit his/her power as an expression of kenotic love (this sounds to me a little like Vanstone's theology), but for process theology God doesn't somehow choose not to act omnipotently; rather, God's lack of omnipotennce is fundamental to God's nature. For the process theologian, to assign omnipotent power to God in the first place is to commit the mistake of assuming that God's infinite nature necessarily entails infinite coercive power.

This is not a small distinction, in my view. I think there is a huge difference between saying that God could smite you if he wanted to but chooses not to do so, and saying that God's ultimate power is persuasive rather than coercive at the most fundamental level. Clayton seems to adhere to the idea that coercive power in and of itself is necessary to the definition of God as being greater than anything conceivable; but process theology would categorically deny that coercive power is a necessary or inherent attribute of God's infinite nature.

It seems to me that as soon as you open up the door of divine omnipotence you start down the slippery slope of trying to explain away theodicy--especially if you believe, as Clayton seems to (from my understanding of your summary of his views) that God did exercise omnipotent power to create the universe initially. This sounds a bit Deistic, to me, actually, since it assigns a significant measure of divine power in the ancient past, whereas process theology places divine activity in the ever continuing future.
Mystical Seeker said…
Also, when he talks about "the Christ event", it sounds like he is defining this in literalistic ways, and not as, for example, John Spong would. So if he is asserting that somehow God could cause virgin births or the resuscitation of dead people without violating physical laws, well, all I can say is, good luck to him with that project.
Anonymous said…
If we're speculating, perhaps life and evolution is so chaotic that it produced/ invented this thing called love in many organisms that came into being. God saw that it was very good, and decided to skew the mix by producing a hybrid(s). Just mumbling. Nowhere did I see the concept of love. But I didn’t read the book. Who did God love first? Wondering how much power he/she has sounds like how many angels can dance on a pin. We don’t need to get so technical in our worship. The joy of God is the joy of (our?) love. This is ours for the taking. It is pretty complicated, but not for humans. Will science ever crack it?

Science and pilosophy does appear to try to understand love and faith, but I doubt it will have good answers for a long time.

David Mc
Anonymous said…
Okay, sorry, there is talk of love. But how did God invent it? Isn't it more likely it was discovered, just like science discovers? That which is even more wonderful than creation? That's what I want to know.

Did we have a passive part in the emergence of love itself? God still gets credit!

I don't mean to distract from the talk here. Just some ramblings.

David Mc
Philip Clayton said…
This is a very high level discussion; my compliments to Bob and to the people who are posting responses. To my mind you are asking exactly the right questions: is there enough emphasis on love, or too much emphasis on power? And, in the end, will it preach?

In response to Mystical Seeker: if there was a time when God existed and God was limited by no other, then wouldn't God's power at that time be, for all intents and purposes, unlimited? And if there are now other agents who enjoy some kinds of real freedom, as we seem to, then mustn't God limit God's power to allow us this freedom and agency?

In response to David Mc: because of Philippians 2:5-8, I think we need to understand God's love *as kenosis*, as God's own self-limitation, the decision not to allow us to be and act. This kenotic view of creation is my attempt to understand creation christologically, and thus as an expression of love.

Bob, you ask the crucial question: will it preach? I've found that the concern with science doesn't preach well in most American churches, so you're wise to skip over that stuff. But I hope you'll find the thoughts on God's action in the world, and esp. the closing chapter of the book, to be a theology that will preach. If it won't preach, then in the end the book is worthless as theology.

-- Philip Clayton
Mystical Seeker said…
Philip, if there were a time when God were all that was, then there would be nothing and no one for God to control or influence, so the definition of "power" in that case strikes me as meaningless. Power is meaningful only in relationship to others. However, as process theologians like to point out, there is far greater power to be found the act of persuasion of another free agent than in raw force over someone or something that is powerless to resist.
Robert Cornwall said…
Mystical Seeker, as I see Philip's position, as he modifies panentheism, he does take a traditional position regarding the nature of God -- God is self-sufficient as Trinity -- but for the love that is God's to be most fully expressed, it calls for (if not requiring) creation.

As for preaching, I'm seeing the points of contact. So, thanks Philip for the encouragement.
Anonymous said…
If we could only understand how time really works, it would fill in the details I’ sure. What came first or last may be irrelevant.

David Mc
John said…
Bob,

Random thoughts:

God pre-existed the universe. What does that mean logically? Was the preexistent God then itself the universe? What does it say about the transcendent God that at some point it determined to create a new universe? Restlessness? Desire? Mere randomness? One conclusion is certain though and that is the truth that God is active and dynamic and not passive or static. The other conclusion is that the act of creating another being (humanity) and vesting in that being a degree of freedom to respond to or to ignore the creator, is an act of love and an act of trust.

You quote: "What we must deal with is the reality that our sense of an interventionist God clashes with modern science – including belief in supernatural interventions, “which would produce physical states different from those predicted by the laws of physics".

However, there is some basis to discern the fingerprints of an interventionist God. Human consciousness is not explainable under the laws of science. Nor can consciousness be scientifically reproduced. At least not yet. And perhaps never. Is it a miracle? Is it possible that the creation of human consciousness is the most sublime act of divine intervention, beyond the act of universal creation itself.

John
John said…
Mystical Seeker.

The problem with ascribing the mathematical descriptor "infinite" to God is that it leads to the conclusion that God's potentialities are limitless. They may be but who knows?

I don't know if mathematical descriptions apply to God, but if one is going to use them, one is bound to get caught up in paradox.

Such definitional traps are the best reason to avoid applying such terms as "omni-" and "infinite" to God. We can only know that part of the elephant which has been exposed to us. The rest is indefensible conjecture and control driven doctrine.

John
Anonymous said…
I am the alpha and the omega.

This is repeated in the bible. This is the claim that grabs me most intellectually.

If God is already at the end and he still loves us, we can proceed bravely. It also fits with the modern concept that time is relative, and as far as God is concerned, irrelevant.

There is also constant talk of casting out evil. Will God destroy evil so there is no memory of it?

David Mc
Robert Cornwall said…
David, good question about the demise of evil. Will, when all is said and done, evil be no more? And will we have no memory of it? The text that Todd Adams preached on Sunday, Rev. 22:1-5 does suggest a day in which there will be no more tears. That may be the answer we're seeking. In the mean time, we're being called to the task of being reconcilers so that this healing may occur in a broken and fragmented world.
Anonymous said…
I'm not sure how that thought popped in. I've been noticing the theme again and again lately.

Maybe because I've actually been looking! When I think "cast in fire etc. I think destroy rather than suffer.

David Mc
Anonymous said…
At the end they are all just theories, no one can tell for sure which theory is the correct one, maybe there is another completely different creation. Just like Generic Cialis, there are many brands.

Popular Posts