In the prior two essays, I discussed the views of several theologians as to what it means for the world to be the body of God. These theologians tended to interpret God-world relations through the lens of physics and biology. The theologians in the next three essays understand God-world relations by way of interrelational concepts, such as the Trinity, community, society, ecology, and intersubjective relationships.
In this essay, I present a very brief description of the panentheistic view of Joseph A. Bracken as conveyed in his essay, “Panentheism: A Field Oriented Approach” (see Works cited below).
Interrelational Perspectives on God-Part I
Philip Clayton critiques Process philosophy (viewed as the strongest form of panentheism) as not giving enough attention to the dialectical nature of the antecedent (immutable and primordial) and consequent (changeable and responsive) natures of God (Clayton 83). Trinitarian process theologian, Bracken, attempts to do just this using a conception inspired by Alfred North Whitehead’s concept of “society.” A society is a group of actual entities (the smallest units of experience) that form an enduring level of order. A human being, for example, is a very high-level society (Hosinski 131-32).
The three persons of the Trinity, he explains, “co-constitute an all-inclusive divine field of activity” (212), which stands as the enduring yet dynamic basis from which all levels of creation emerge and become. All fields of creation, which are formed through mutual prehension, also continually prehend the persons of the Trinity, who together co-create the divine unity (212, 217).
Bracken’s approach is an alternative to the organismic view of God-world relations in which God is to world as soul is to body. Bracken believes that this model does not sufficiently preserve the ontological independence of either God or creation. The field metaphor does reflect this independence because lower-level fields are governed by their own laws and help to form higher level fields. Higher level fields in turn, regulate lower levels. Each level maintains an enduring identity while simultaneously being modified through these interrelationships (Bracken 212).
Works cited
In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World. Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, eds. William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company (Grand Rapids: 2004).
Hosinski, Thomas E. Stubborn Fact and Creative Advance: An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (Lanham: 1993).
3 responses so far ↓
Paul M Martin // November 7, 2007 at 10:16 pm |
This reminds me of Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory. He’d ended up with his own – was it trinity? – of gravity and I forget what else. But he was looking (to the best of my ability to understand Einstein, which won’t take us very far!) for a single underlying force that would explain all phenomena.
I wonder if, from the perspective of Judaism, the Trinity looks like a departure from monotheism? I suppose the answer here could be the parodox that it’s three but one.
I wonder if this field idea doesn’t blur the distinction between the ideas of God and nature – or Nature. To me, this God appears pretty natural.
Panentheism: Interrelational Perspectives on God, Part II « Gospel of Karin // November 16, 2007 at 6:12 am |
[...] the last post, Interrelational Perspectives on God, Part I, I began presenting interrelational views on panentheism. The present post focuses on the [...]
Panentheism: Interrelational Perspectives on God, Part II « Gospel of Karin // November 16, 2007 at 6:14 am |
[...] Perspectives on God, Part II In the last post, Interrelational Perspectives on God, Part I, I began presenting interrelational views on panentheism. The present post focuses on the [...]