Process theology is sprawling and complex and I don't want us to get too lost in the weeds, but I need to share some basic ideas to get everyone on the same page. Two of the key ideas behind a lot of process theology are the following:
God as Dynamic and Relational: Unlike classic theism, which describes God as immutable and omnipotent, process theology argues that God is deeply involved in the world and is affected by it. God experiences the joys and sufferings of creation and changes in response to these experiences. This relationship emphasizes God’s empathy and responsiveness rather than dominance.
God’s Power as Persuasive, Not Coercive: Rather than exerting unilateral control over the world, God works through gentle persuasion, inviting beings toward greater harmony, creativity, and beauty. Process theology rejects traditional views of divine omnipotence, emphasizing instead that God influences rather than controls creation.
Basically, process theology emphasizes the relationality between God and the world in a way that rethinks God's immutability and unchanging nature along with envisioning God's influence upon the world as persuasive and non-coercive. Simply put, God changes and is not all-powerful (as traditionally understood).
If you're wondering what the theological "win" here is the advantages of process thought concern both theodicy and ethics. Regarding theodicy, process theology is much more willing to say God "can't" eliminate pain and suffering because God's power just doesn't work in that "top-down" sort of way. Regarding ethics, we become what we worship, and if we worship a God who reigns omnipotently over creation we'll come to valorize power, dominance, and coercion. And we do see a lot of that temptation among Christians today. (Hello, evangelicals!) By placing before us a vision of God whose power is more relational and "bottom-up" process theology sets before us a "better" God in the hope of making "better" Christians.
To my mind, these are clear "wins." So, I've always understood the attractions of process thought. But I've never myself found the idea plausible. I get the wins, I just don't buy the ideas that get us there. For two reasons. Call these the Ontological Objection and the Teleological Objection.
First, the Ontological Objection.
Did God create the world ex nihilo? If God did not create the world the word "God" would not be referring to the Source of being itself, which means the word "God" is being used improperly. If God and creation are coterminous then the ground of both God's being and creation's being would be left unaccounted for. And in the Christian imagination the word "God" should point to the ground of being itself. Stated in a more philosophical way, I suspect that the word "existence" is being used in process thought too univocally in relation to God and creation.
If, however, process folks are concerned about creation ex nihilo placing God at a deistic remove from creation, I'd simply clarify that the Christian understanding of creation ex nihilo isn't imagining something like Big Bang cosmology but is, rather, describing creation's continuous ontological dependence upon God. Again, I think process thought tips too far toward a scientistic vision of being, trapping itself in a metaphysical cul-de-sac of univocity. Properly understood, creation ex nihilo is a deeply and profoundly relational doctrine. We exist only in a continual relation to God. We exist because of love.
Next, the Teleological Objection.
Process theology assumes that both God and creation are on a shared, developmental journey toward love. Love is the telos of cosmic evolution. But if God is open to change why is it assumed that we end up in a peaceful, loving place? If God's nature is not fixed why wouldn't it be possible that creation devolve into violence and chaos? That is to say, if the future of the God/Creation relation is open and dynamic, what prevents the evolution of the cosmos from going sideways? Either the relationship is less open than process theology assumes or the final telos of love has to be jettisoned as our only trajectory. We might be on the Highway to Hell. Basically, if God's nature changes we've got no guarantee we get to a good place. And if God's nature doesn't change, then God's relationship with creation might "affect" him but not in a way that changes his nature.
Concisely stated, there's an inconsistency between process theology's teleological optimism and vision of God's dynamic, open, and changing nature. Embrace teleological optimism and God's nature really doesn't change at all, not in any way that teleologically matters for the God/Creation relationship. Sure, God might have "experiences" with Creation on its journey, but if the teleological outcome is fixed you're evacuating the word "experience" of much of its celebrated status in process thought. If God's "experiences" of creation do not change creation's ultimate future this sounds just like how God's "experiences" are treated in classical theism.
Now, I expect process theologians have rejoinders to all this. And I do want to say that a loving, relational vision of God is my own vision. I just get there with different theological tools. To be sure, my suite of convictions has its own tensions and conflicts. I don't think anyone escapes criticism, not classic theism nor the process folks. I'm just sharing where I experience some frictions with process thought.
