The doctrine of creation and process theology: with particular reference to the thought of Charles Hartshorne

Abstract

The purpose in writing this dissertation is simply to compare two things which have not been previously compared—the doctrine of creation and process theology, and in so doing, see if process theology puts forward an adequate and acceptable interpretation of this venerable doctrine. That such comparison can and should take place is obvious when one realizes the tremendous emphasis process thinkers place on their notion of creativity and the unique way in which they define all entities, including God, as •self-created creatures.' Perhaps, it is outside Influences that have determined that focus of process interests would be elsewhere. Linguistic analysis and neo-orthodox theology have joined forces in attacking metaphysics. These same two forces have made discussion of God and of Jesus Christ of immediate importance. Be this as it may, dialogue between process thinkers and traditional ones, on the subject of creation, is over-due.Some of the terms in the title need definition. "Process theology" is the baptized offspring of process philosophy and possibly its only surviving heir. The progenitor of process philosophy is Alfred North Whitehead who first established himself in Europe as a mathematician and then switched subjects and continents, emigrating to the United States where he became one of the foremost philosophers of the first half of this century. The most important work in the second half of his career was an expansion of his 1927-28 Glfford ii Lectures, delivered at the University of Edinburgh and published in 1929 under the title, Process and Reality. Even though Whitehead's ideas had been expressed earlier elsewhere, this was by far his most complete articulation of process philosophy.If Whitehead is the progenitor of process thought, why does this dissertation pay particular attention to one of Whitehead's students, Charles Hartshorne? Whitehead's concerns were not primarily theological, but cosmological. Hartshome's concerns are theological as indicated by an early and sustained interest in Anselra's ontological argument for the existence of God, which formed the basis of his theism. Hartshorne, much more than Whitehead, has defined and discussed God from a process point of view. Through his work, Whitehead's teachings have been expanded and revised both with original thought and insights gained from other persons. The understanding of God is one of the areas where Hartshome takes many exceptions with the teaching of his mentor.Hartshorne also deserves special consideration because he, for awhile, almost singlehandedly kept process thought alive. Process philosophy is now fifty years old but was largely ignored until the last fifteen years when opponents of the death of God theology revived an interest in it as an alternative system. Although he was not the only process thinker around in those thirty-five years of neglect, Hartshorne certainly was the most ardent and articulate spokesman for the cause."Traditional theology" is an umbrella term covering almost everything in Western theology which is not process thought. This iii includes virtually the entirety of the tradition in which the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches stand. Needless to say, the people clustered by this term are a diverse group and might not be happy at being lumped together. From the process perspective, traditional theology has two basic characteristics: (1) an implicit or an explicit preference for being rather than becoming as the basic metaphysical description of reality (2) a •monopolar prejudice1 with regard to God which permits him to be conceptualized only in terms of abstract, non-relative categories. The wide diversity in traditional theology is sampled here, and the term should suggest nothing other than theology which is not process theology.Traditional theology's many understandings of the doctrine of creation are scanned in Chapter 1. What is instantly obvious, is the wide and rich diversity of interpretations that have been put forward. Two concepts, however, consistently support the various understandings—creation ex nihilo and creatio per verbum. Three affirmations have also been made about creation. The first concerns the creation's total dependency on God as its creator. The second states that even though God and the creation are not one, the creation is fundamentally good. Finally, creation must be seen as an act of God's love.Chapter 2 lays out the process concept of creation beginning with the basic understanding of creative-synthesis. Notable here is Hartshome's and John Cobb's departure from Whitehead in placing supreme importance on the role God performs in the creative process, that is providing each entity with its initial aim. Through further analysis, God is seen as being "creativity itself" and his creativity is the creativity which creates the creativity of others. God's creativity is then identified with the traditional concept of the Logos.In the third chapter traditional doctrines and the process concept are juxtaposed. Process thought embraces creatlo pro verbum but rejects creatlo ex nihilo replacing it with the notion of creation out of chaos. In spite of this, process thought is able to make the same affirmations as traditional thought; however, the content of these affirmations is often distinctly different.The dissertation concludes with a chapter on analogy. Various Thomist classifications are put forward and the deep disagreement among Thomists as to the correct understanding of them, is discussed. Reformed concepts of analogy are also cited, particularly Berth's ideas. Hartshorne's concept and use of analogy is set out and described as "the analogy of creativity." This analogy is then compared with Thomas* analoqia entis and Barth's analoqla fidei.The bibliography at the end of the dissertation contains those sources actually used in the paper.This author gratefully acknowledges that a large number of people have aided and abetted this project, in direct and indirect ways. Special thanks go to my advisors, Dr. John Mclntyre and Mr. D.W.D. Shaw, for their patient guidance and assistance. Also, Charlene Ireland's arduous and excellent efforts in typing the final copy merit special mention as does nty wife, Alegria's proofreading. I also appreciate that my children, Lois and Clay, were willing to accept that for awhile Charles Hartshome seemed as important to their daddy as they did.