I’m getting to …Always. Does. Everything. God. Can. Do… I promise, but I had to add this short word about omnipotence from an article I just read in the Aug 10 edition of The Christian Century. It’s entitled “American Export,” and it’s a review of the place of Process Thought in China’s growing theological (and ecological and economical) expansion. Process Theology was founded by mathematician-philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) on the principle that all things are interconnected, that we are “personally and communally responsible for the common good,” and that all things, perhaps even God, are moving, changing, evolving — hence, in process.
United Methodist, John Cobb, retired professor at Emory University and Claremont School of Theology, is one of the leading proponents of process theology. (Park Road-ians might be interested to know that our own, Emil Mialik, former pastor of Wedgewood Baptist in Charlotte, studied with Cobb at Claremont, and is a proponent of all-things-process.) Cobb was recently in China for a lecture when he found himself the center of “rock star” attention — apparently lots of Chinese intellectuals (Christians and Marxists, theologians and economists) are interested in Process Theology, which they often refer to as Constructive Postmodernism. These two paragraphs are from the article:
“Process theology occupies a modest niche in U.S. theological circles. It addresses the classic problem of evil — how can an omniptent God allow bad things to happen? — by positing that God is not all-powerful and not a micromanager of earthly events. Process theologians would say that God rejoices and suffers with humans in their ups and downs and is concerned with all levels of existence.
Cobb said that the Chinese do not object to the word ‘God,’ but ‘the idea that there is some center of control that determines everthing has never been a part of Chinese thought.’ From his point of view, Cobb said, ‘the problem of evil grows out of the terrible doctine of divine omniptence, which is not biblical but which became so deeply established that many Christians think you can’t worship without believing it.”(emphases added)
I knew that what I knew of Process Theology I appreciated. I didn’t know that I was a full-blown believer! I’ll be reading more on Whitehead and Process Thought in the coming days, but I needed to share these words with you.
Russ
6 Comments
This is essentially what Rabbi Harold Kushner said in his book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.”
To the comments of John Cobb, ‘doctine of divine omniptence, which is not biblical’
From the first book to the last, over 30 times….God is Almighty and at the end..omnipotent , to which a great multitude will be glad.
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Rev 4: 8c : and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Rev19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude……. saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him:
If God is doing-all he can—, how is that considered as hands off or a non-micromanager approach?
Sherman, I don’t quite understand Cobb’s remark, but it echoes what my friend, Dr. Don Polaski (brother of our own Dr. Tom Polaski) said of an earlier post, that the idea of omnipotence may well have been a foreign concept to the Hebrew mind. Maybe the good doctor will get wind of his name being mentioned, and help us with this. I am quite sure that the presence of a quotable proof-text in the Bible is no guarantee of God’s “omnipotence” (as it is not of any other issue — slave-holding Southerners were quite happy to quote chapter and verse to defend their quite un-biblical position on owning black Americans — a position for which they could find ample “biblical proof.”) Dr. Polaski… any help here?
Yes, the Bible is not a simplistic book. There is much to be interpreted. By proof-text, I take that to mean using words found in the Bible either out of context or without comparing or contrasting other verses as to come to a fuller understanding. Such as the atheist can say, The Bible says ‘[There is] no God’. But I don’t really think that those who really read the Bible for understanding think that the overall teaching of the words contained in the Bible imply God’s non-existence.
To say ‘God has omnipotence’ would mean he is the only power, the all power.
This does not appear to be true as there is much in the world that opposes God, even the idea of a God.
To say ‘the Lord God omnipotent reigneth’ would mean that there is none greater in that realm.
At this time I cannot think of any verses that would hint that God is not the supreme in power, that there is a stronger one that can successfully thwart his plans or actions. If you have any, email me and we can discuss it further.
If it is true or not true is up to the one interpreting, but I just do not see the case for saying divine omnipotence is un-biblical.
But his real statement was ‘the problem of evil grows out of the terrible doctrine of divine omnipotence’ which to me says, If God was not in control then there would be no evil. I think there will always be that which opposes God. It will just not be within the ‘God in whom we live and move and have our being’
Finally found this (yes, I was googling my own name). In the OT, “God Almighty” often translates El Shaddai, which doesn’t really seem to convey omnipotence. In fact, I’m not sure we really have a great idea what Shaddai means. I think — though I haven’t nailed this argument down — that you’ll find claims of divine omnipotence in the NT only where the text counterposes divine power claims and the power claims of the empire, as if to say “The Romans claim all power, but we know God really has all power.” I think that’s a helpful theological stance in that context, but it does raise real issues when one brings human suffering into the mix.
El Shaddai I believe means “many breasted one” … For more on what Cobb says i found a brilliant introduction here: Process Theology: An Introductory Introduction
by John B. Cobb, Jr.
on http://www.ctr4process.org/media/page2.shtml
He says that he is more biblical in his interpretations than classical Theism
regards
Bruce