Wesleyan Theology and Process Theology

3/24/15, 3:12 AMWesleyan Theology and Process Theology

Page 1 of 4http://processandfaith.org/print/writings/ask-dr-cobb/2014-08/wesleyan-theology-and-process-theology

Published on Process & Faith (http://processandfaith.org)

Home > Writings > Ask Dr. Cobb > Wesleyan Theology and Process Theology

Wesleyan Theology and Process TheologyQuestion: Process theology has been influential and controversial in Wesleyan-Holiness theology. Whatabout John Wesleys thought to you find most amenable to process theology?Publication Month: August 2014Author - First Name: John B.Author - Last Name: Cobb, Jr.

I appreciate this question. For a fuller answer, I refer to my book on Wesley, Grace andResponsibility. I think the reader will see that I find most of Wesleys teaching highly amenableto process theology. Indeed, I think that historically they belong to the same tradition. LikeWesley, process theology comes from an Anglican background. Of course, it is mediatedthrough philosophers, but the two most influential ones, Alfred North Whitehead and CharlesHartshorne, share that background.

This background is quite different from a Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist one. Catholicismpromotes philosophical theology but exercises dogmatic control over its philosophers.Lutherans and Calvinists want theology to be Biblical rather than philosophical. Anglicans areopen to philosophical influence in their thinking without exercising dogmatic control. Explicitphilosophy is not prominent in Wesley, but he was certainly not anti-philosophical. Hence theprominence of philosophy in the process tradition has not been offensive to Episcopalians andWesleyans. Further, its independence from dogma is also acceptable. In this tradition oneexpects reason to be supportive of good Christian thinking rather than a threat. This is howprocess theologians experience it.

Im sure the reader understands that these are sweeping generalizations not intended toreject Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist contributions. Wesley as a good Anglican deeplyappreciated the Reformers. His Aldersgate experience was a response to a reading fromLuther. He called his views a hairsbreadth removed from Calvinism. Among Protestants of hisday he was remarkably appreciative of Catholics. Like most Anglicans he felt himself incontinuity with the early church fathers a continuity shared by Roman Catholics as well asthe Eastern Church. All of this systems of connection is claimed by process theology as well.

Above all, Wesley was biblical to the core. I know of no more biblical preaching than his. Butprecisely because it is authentically biblical, he is not Biblicist. He does not teach sola



scriptura. He appreciates tradition but he does not require acceptance of what are oftenregarded as orthodox doctrines developed in that tradition. Process theologians could not askfor more. We believe that process philosophy opens us to understanding scripture much morein its own terms than has been true in the past. For a long time the shaping of thought byGreek philosophies led to filtering biblical thought in a way that distorted it. Even theReformers who tried to free themselves from these distortions were not really successful indoing so because they did not think through to an alternative set of glasses. Even thetranslations into European languages suffered as a result. Wesley to a greater extent thanmost really allowed the biblical vision to express itself through his preaching. We celebratethis.

The most serious distortion of the Bible as a whole and the gospel in particular came aboutthrough the translation of Shaddai by almighty. In the Bible Gods power is certainlyemphasized. Often, but certainly not always, this is depicted as controlling power. Jesuspictured it quite differently. Nowhere does the Bible present God as omnipotent. But in theearly church it was often supposed that glorifying God appropriately led to attributing all powerto deity. This played the positive role of making the subordination of imperial power to divinepower evident, but it has had truly terrible consequences. One of these is the idea ofpredestination. The Roman Catholic church wisely, but not very coherently, resisted this.Calvin unwisely, and not very coherently, reasserted it, wrongly assuming that it was biblical.Arminius sought to develop a coherent Calvinism that justified the responsibility that Calvinhad located with individuals, but he lost his battle, and the victors affirmed a Calvinism withwhich Calvin himself would have been uncomfortable. Wesley identified himself with Arminius.

Neither Arminius nor Wesley explicitly worked out the implications of this view for the nature ofdivine power. But Wesley at least avoided the language of omnipotence, recognizing its closeassociation with the idea of predestination that he so strongly opposed. Process theologiansrejoice that he did so, knowing the harm it causes. Today we can go further, first showing thatit is unbiblical, and then showing that it is irrational, even nonsensical. The Bible makes senseand is believable. What is called Christian orthodoxy does not and is not. Lets be biblical andwork with the philosophy that helps us be that.

The congeniality with Wesley goes farther still. Some forms of Christianity, especiallyProtestant Christianity, make one sharp division among people. They are either saved or theyare not. Some think this is a matter decided by God. Those who share Wesleys view thathuman decision is involved often focus on a decisive moment of conversion. Of course theyaffirm here, almost uniquely, the working of the Holy Spirit. Wesley, in contrast, sees the HolySpirit working in everyone in relation to their own free and responsible decisions throughoutthe whole of life. It is at work before conversion (Wesley speaks of justification ); itcontinues working in much the same way in sanctifying. The fact that one has experiencedjustification does not insure that one will not return to a pre-justified state. The theologiandoes not decide such matters by imposed doctrine but by observing what actually happens.This is all pure process theology.



Today, process theologians would build on Wesleys empiricism. The study of what actuallyhappens in the lives of people can and should be extended even beyond the bounds of theChristian community. I believe that Wesley himself would favor this. He responded tooutsiders with remarkable openness and appreciation. The world of outsiders has grown.Process theologians feel no separation from Wesley in enlarging our study and reflection toinclude the spiritual history of humankind.

The specific question has to do with Wesleyan-Holiness theology. This reflects a split amongWesleys followers. No one questions that for Wesley, at every stage of spiritual growth, theaim is to become more fully loving of God and neighbor. Perfection in love is the overarchinggoal. Still, there has been a tragic split among his followers.

There are passages in Wesley that suggest that perfection in love or entire sanctification isan achievable goal and even associate its achievement with a particular moment in a personslife. One could judge that once that goal was reached, there was nothing more to be aimedfor. This second blessing, entire sanctification, can be understood to differ from the first,therefore, in not being part of an ongoing process but being its completion.

If that was really Wesleys view, then this is a point at which process theology parts company.We do believe it to be impossible that there are occasions in our lives when Gods aim for us,the aim of perfect love, is actually attained. That attainment may be repeated in subsequentmoments. But this is not the end of growth. In each moment, what is available to be lovedchanges. This provides an endless opportunity for extension. One may confront more andmore challenging enemies, which are harder and harder to love. There is no guarantee thatlove will extend to them as well. We do not want to deny the possibility that in everysuccessive moment perfect love will again prevail. But any belief that one has arrived at finalachievement will make continuing success less likely. It is my opinion that this processformulation is more Wesleyan than the seemingly static one that too often is presented asWesleyan. But of course I do not want to pretend to know what Wesley would say. If Wesleyheld to the static view, then process theology disagrees with him.

The mainstream of Wesleyan thought split with those who emphasized holiness in a way thatsounded like the completion of the journey. Sadly, this has led to an overall decline ofemphasis on growth toward perfect love among many Wesleyans today. I indicated that I thinkthe idea of static fulfillment is not truly Wesleyan. I can say much more emphatically that adecline of seriousness about reshaping our lives so as to become more truly loving of bothGod and fellow humans is a betrayal of the Wesleyan heritage. It is my hope that processtheology can help to renew seriousness about the quest for ever more wholehearted and evermore expanding love.

Ask Dr. Cobb [1] Empiricism [2] theology [3] Wesley [4] whitehead [5]Process & Faith is a program of the Center for Process Studies, an affiliated program of the

Claremont School of Theology.This site and all content 2012 Process & Faith, unless otherwise noted.



Questions? Comments? Ask the P&F Web Team.

Source URL: http://processandfaith.org/writings/ask-dr-cobb/2014-08/wesleyan-theology-and-process-theology

Links:[1] http://processandfaith.org/category/kind-content/writings/ask-dr-cobb[2] http://processandfaith.org/category/keywords/empiricism[3] http://processandfaith.org/category/keywords/theology[4] http://processandfaith.org/category/keywords/wesley[5] http://processandfaith.org/category/keywords/whitehead

Wesleyan Theology and Process Theology

Documents

Transcript of Wesleyan Theology and Process Theology