On the Mystery, by Catherine Keller: A Reflection

 Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process

Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2008

 

            My reaction to the book will not be in the form of a review. I will use the book for some of its themes and topics and offer my perspective. That means I will be using terms of the author that sometimes I would not use outside the context of a discussion of this book. When she refers to evangelical or conservatives her comments are negative, and when she refers to her politics, she is reliably progressive. Since the context of this article is a response to her statements, this article will need to be a reversal of her thinking.           

            Process philosophy is, thankfully, becoming a common influence upon theology. It has the potential to encourage a conversation between normally vigorously opposed communities of faith. How one uses such a world view often depends upon other decisions one makes.

            One choice a theological thinker will make regards the tradition of theology. 

            If one wishes to be faithful to the biblical and Christian tradition, one could simply reshape notions of the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Christian life with the forms of thought developing in our era. This would be a conservative use of process thinking in a way that preserves the past, incorporates valid thinking of today, and leaves one open to new possibilities for the future. Such a use would lead one to respect the contribution of the past and lead to a desire to have some consistency with the church of Jesus Christ through the ages. Karl Barth would not be a process theologian, yet, because of the depth of his understanding of the Incarnation and the cross, he can sound like a process theologian in places of his Church Dogmatics. Pannenberg has process elements of his theology, but Hegel was his path toward this philosophical perspective. Some evangelical theologians have gravitated toward this perspective, with pan-en-theism being the theological perspective. Its ability to bring the transcendence and immanence of God into a philosophical perspective is beneficial. Progressive theologians have also found in the process philosophy of Whitehead a helpful means of integrating modern scientific approaches in physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and ecology with the biblical and theological tradition. 

            One could also use such a worldview to replace the tradition with a perceived newer and better thinking of today. This would lead to a revisionist theology that would look with skepticism upon the contributions of the past, since it was a patriarchal and hierarchal intellectual environment, and shape a theology for a new age. Such a view would count it admirable and prophetic to separate itself from the church of the past and rely upon new revelations of Christ for today. Its advantage, that it is free to develop a theology embedded in the whims of at least one vocal part of the present age, is also its weakness, for I am not sure why anyone would feel the need to add a troublesome ancient text and tradition to something they can believe without that baggage.

            I want to admit openly that the view of God in process theology is not the God of the Exodus, Yahweh, the tribal deity who is truly present to a people who needed a liberator and one who would fight for them, a Divine Warrior who was clearly on the side of the oppressed slave rather than the oppressing Egyptians who were themselves imprisoned within their fear of the slaves and their possible rebellion. Viewing God as active in the world through the Spirit in a way that persuades and attracts seems like a weak view of God. I want to suggest that truth lays in another place.

            In Season 4, episode 15 of Fringe (2012), we have a big reveal in the series. The Observers thought they had erased Peter from existence, which they wanted to do because he was not supposed to have lived through childhood. The intervention of an Observer preserved his life, but that intervention had other unpleasant ramifications for the future of humanity, so the Observers devised a plan to erase him from the memories of those with whom he had interacted. It worked for a while, but Peter kept showing up in dreams and daydreams of those closest to him. He became incarnated in a moment, as he rose out of the water in a nearby lake. Olivia, his romantic interest, at first does not recognize him. Therefore, Peter spends much of the season trying to get back to another timeline, a different potential future. It is his desire to get home. However, she starts having memories from the “other” Olivia in a different potential future. In this episode, an Observer reveals that the plan to erase Peter from this timeline did not work. The love of those around him would not allow him to be erased. In dramatically high moment, the Observer reveals that this potential future is his home. He admits he cannot prove it scientifically, but he thought that the love those around him had for him would not allow the erasing of him from their potential future. Thus, he was, as in the Wizard of Oz, already home. The Olivia that was recovering memories from the “other” Olivia was his Olivia. Such a moment in a television series can be sappy, but I do not experience it that way. My point is that while the way process philosophy can speak of a divine lure or attraction toward certain forms of life that enhance human flourishing can sound like weakness, a story like this is a reminder of the type of power love and attraction can hold over people. Nor must we shy away from recognizing that it has an erotic quality to it that may take us beyond scientific analysis, although I must grant that science may well explain even that.

            Process theology has another potential within it to highlight the significance of the revelatory moment of Jesus of Nazareth. The way he led his life, the self-sacrifice of his life that culminated in the cross, and the vindication of his life and death and resurrection, reveal a creative transformation of the relation between God and humanity. Jesus lived his life in obedience to his Father. However, we dare not minimize the significance of his death. His cross exposes the depth of human sin in its turn from the source of what is life-giving. It reveals the human self-deception of acting righteously while also acting violently and coercively. In a personal way, it reveals my identification with those who judged Jesus and put him to death. It reveals my sin, my waywardness, and … my need of forgiveness.

 

            1 What can wash away my sin? 

            Nothing but the blood of Jesus. 

            What can make me whole again? 

            Nothing but the blood of Jesus. 

            4 This is all my hope and peace: 

            nothing but the blood of Jesus. 

            This is all my righteousness: 

            nothing but the blood of Jesus. 

            

            The creative transformation that occurs in Jesus of Nazareth puts the people of God on notice that the notion of God as Divine Warrior who would command the ban of every man, woman, child, and beast of a village is no longer a possibility. It puts behind the people of God a prayer to bash the heads of the children of the enemy upon the stones. It puts behind the people of God stoning people because of adultery, homosexual practice, misusing the name of the Lord, breaking Sabbath law, and breaking any of the Ten Commandments. As Jesus of Nazareth took within himself the sin and disobedience of the people of God, represented by the Jewish leaders of his day and his disciples, as well as the sin and disobedience of humanity, represented by the Roman leaders of his day, he bore the burden of the sin and evil of humanity. He absorbed the violence toward which human beings are prone. The loveless cycle of racism, greed, and envy is repetitive in every generation, for which I could site many biblical passages. The Father, to whom Jesus owed his obedience, honored the way of Jesus with resurrected life through the life-giving power of the Spirit, giving the people of God that same Spirit by which to build community and life in faith, hope, and love. Granted, the people of God have been weak reflections of this creative transformation, but enough faithfulness has remained to witness to its truth. Thus, it opens the door for a liberating, healing, and guiding presence and power of the Spirit in personal, communal, and institutional life.

            Process theology, through its version of pan-en-theism, can pave the way for developing an understanding of both the transcendence and immanence of God. God provides the structuring conditions out of which novelty arises. There is a logos in creation out of which new themes emerge.

            Process theology also has the potential to bring convergence of various denominational families in eschatology. All Christian communities might be ready to put behind them The Late, Great, Planet Earth of Hal Lindsey and dispensational thinking. It was sad for me to learn that John Wesley in his comments on the Book of Revelation adopted the views of J. A. Bengel on chiliasm. Such a view inevitably looks toward a time when the scientific description of the end will not be, which is a problem for many conservatives as well as the progressive. It also inevitably looks forward to a time when the Father, acting in concert with the Crucified Son, and in the power of the life-giving Spirit, becomes a coercive and vengeful force rather than a persuading and luring one. Process theology holds out a view of Jewish apocalyptic that allows it to be as it is but focusing upon its vision of a creative transformation between God and humanity that allows the life-giving energies of the Spirit to bear fruit in an increasingly free, peaceful, and just future. It recognizes the intensity and even violence of the process, and is thus not utopian about the process, but it also holds forth a powerful vision of a loving and just potential future for humanity, while always recognizing the self-destructive propensities of humanity.

            To shift gears, another choice a theological thinker will need to make within process theology regards the politics of the day. 

            One could decide to view the process as one that gives room for economic and political freedom within a relational and communal decision-making process. Such a concern recognizes the fragile nature of freedom and its rarity in human history. It will trust the competitive and cooperative process of consumers, workers, and producers will result in what is best for the flourishing of humanity. It has concern for the environment but trusts that education process and the decisions of millions of people to result in the healthiest environment possible. It will persist in educating processes that will encourage respect for the worth and dignity of individuals, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. It recognizes the importance of the black family, for example, while having a concern for the human family as well, recognizing that we must learn to live together, or we will perish together. It will distrust corporations that wed themselves to a left-wing or right-wing political agenda, wanting them to stick to their business. It will distrust coercive efforts of politicians, in cooperation with an interweaving and complex set of overlapping institutions of media, academia, entertainment, and corporations, put into effect by bureaucratic powers in the federal government. 

            Such a view would also be considered right-wing by one devoted to the progressive ideology. Thus, the theological thinker could also decide to wed oneself to a left-wing ideology. Such a thinker might do so and not want to admit the bias such a commitment creates. Their view would be that they simply are on the side of love and (social) justice. To resist their views means their opponents are racist, against women, and against respect for those of sexual orientations other than heterosexual. They have created their progressive universe in which their propositions are uncontroversial while another side does not rationally exist. 

            Thus, the progressive can say that:

 

o   Nobody believes traditional ideas about biological sex for only dinosaurs would believe such antiquated notions. It takes shared concern for respect and use it to advance peculiar notions of gender, denying biological reality in favor of the truthiness of how I perceive myself to be. 

o   Everyone believes climate change is a crisis that threatens life on earth and not to do so is like Holocaust denial. The West does not need fracking or nuclear energy, but needs to switch to renewables fast and degrowth an economy or face extinction. Therefore, the main concern about a war between Russia and Ukraine is its effect upon the environment (John Kerry), whereas it was the movement of Europe natural gas and nuclear that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over the energy supply of Europe. The West fiddled by its anxiety over carbon footprints, soft energy, and put itself in a hypnotic trance about healing the earth, while Putin made his move, with China doing the same, both nations happy the West remains in its trance. Such a view will take the shared concern to live in a healthy physical environment and turn it into a coercive expansion of government power through a fanciful notion of an ecological crisis to justify intrusive economic coercion by government into matters that ought to be left to the free and relational process of producing and consuming. 

o   Everyone believes America is systemically racist, and not to do so makes one a bigot. Such a view will take the shared concern for the sin of racism and transform it into a crisis that requires coercive action by government and, to continue gaining votes and expanding government, the creation of hatred and division, over something as minor as the color of skin. 

            

What if everyone does not believe the propositions within the progressive universe? Such opposition might suggest that any basis for concern in these areas of life in the West are matters that can be healed, in a way that brings liberation and wisdom toward that which will advance human flourishing. Creating a fallacious crisis allows leaders to expand the coercive interference of government into a process that could, if allowed to flow freely, while bringing the needed healing, liberation, and guidance into the culture. Thus, it may be that many Americans do not believe the crisis, even if they share reasonable concerns in each of these areas. The only option by the progressive is to reinforce denial with censorship. 

            An intriguing aspect of this is that such a progressive view will be negative toward corporactocracy while reaping the benefits of the wealthy and the corporations that advance their preferred left-wing ideology. Another intriguing element is that such a view will be fearful of a theocracy on the right, while becoming the devoted religious arm of left-wing political ideology. From the perspective of a conservative, the danger here is the worldview of the progressive seems so comprehensive and utopian that it removes any need for God, replacing the hunger for God with devotion to a political ideology. 

            Particularly dangerous for the progressive theologian is that becoming overly embedded in this Left-wing view will lead to not seeing and/or justifying violence of the left-wing. I am going to suggest that, for many on the Right, are simply facts, but which a progressive would like view as nonsense. Those of us on the Right would refer to the persistent and violent intimidation in the streets that we find in Antifa and BLM. For the Right, the focus on the one-day event of January 6 blurs the persistent intimidation from these two groups. For the Right, it will also lead to the Left considering a political victory by their opponents as a threat democracy, thereby justifying turning the FBI and CIA into political weapons for the Democrat Party. Such a view will project onto the political conservative a fascism that they themselves practice in the form of what the Right views as show-trials and the use of intimidation, whether in the streets with Antifa and BLM, with the power of the FBI or the CIA, and with the power of shaming and canceling in social media. 

Such a progressive view often creates shibboleths of its own for those of an evangelical persuasion and a conservative political bent, such as summarizing them as anti-gay and anti-abortion. Behind the evangelical, holiness, deeper life, and orthodox communities, many of whom may lean conservative in their politics, are far deeper and broader than many progressives will allow. Their leaders are aware of classic conservative perspectives by Edmond Burke, Russel, Kirk, and Roger Scruton. What drives them is an instinct for home and living life by covenantal relationships between the living, the dead, and the unborn future generation. Such conservatives want to be left alone by the party in power.

            I am enough of a liberal of the old sort to remain concerned about encouraging a political and economic environment that advances human flourishing. I believe the best way to accomplish that is by freeing up states and localities to be the laboratories of experimentation they can be, but this means lessening the regulatory and tax burden of the coercive powers of the federal government. This would require national politicians who are willing to trust the process of local freedom to deal with the challenges of environment and poverty unique to their areas. It would also align me, in the minds of most progressives, as a right-winger and even of the extreme right.

            I also remain concerned that Christianity be free to make its various contributions to human flourishing, including an orthodox perspective that is messier, more complex, and broader than many progressives would think.   

            Some theologians become deeply embedded in an oppositional form of thinking. They are sure of the righteousness of their cause and their ideology. The inference they draw is that an opposing form of thought is the negation of themselves and their beliefs. Theologians of the right and left may succumb to this form of thinking. However, in this moment, the danger is from the left-wing of political discourse. The reason is their power. For several decades, academia, major media sources, social media, and the entertainment have thrown their weight behind changing culture to its left-wing views. It seems clear that major corporate power has embraced the left-wing progressive ideology, so that this ideology is never short of the funds to advance its cause. When we add to this the administrations of Obama and Biden, we see the effect in the weaponizing of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ against the political opponents of the Democrat Party, the house of progressive politics today. Here is one the way one progressive on Twitter put it:

 

We seem to be at a point that the FBI could come out and say “of course he is one of us and there were several others, but we had to do something to prevent Trump from being able to run again” and the statement would strengthen many people’s support for them and their actions. @smbodie3 

 

Mentioning Trump has a way of making his attackers and defenders alike lose their minds. I would like him to be quiet, be thankful for the years he had as President and what he did accomplish, and let younger, dynamic, and more appealing GOP candidates emerge. I would rather not get into why I think he will not do that, mostly because it would require an insight into his mind and heart that I do not have. However, rest assured that if he did step aside, the GOP candidate will also be branded as fascist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and so on. For me, that is a big problem in the political environment today. My point, to be clear, is that those who have power have a responsibility to use it in a way that is not coercive or violent. I am suggesting that progressives in powerful positions of culture, economics, and politics have not been good practitioners of a peaceful or respectful use of their power. For theologians of the Left, this is a unique challenge, for if they are to be prophetic within their Left-wing communities, they must have the courage to denounce the use of force, intimidation, and violence to those who possess power in their own community of beliefs. It does no good for me, as someone they would view as extreme right-wing, to do so. 

            As one example of the hardened positions, for a progressive theologian to see in Marvin Olasky someone to oppose or belittle is to miss opportunity to explore how best to express compassion for those in need. The same is true of George H. W. Bush, who proposed his “thousand points of light” to expand a compassionate response by the country to those in need. 

            As a second example, The Cornwall Declaration On Environmental Stewardship (2000) is a powerful statement on proper care for the environment, but rejects the ideological perspective of those who embrace the notion of an ecological crisis that requires massive intrusion by government into the individual decisions of producers and consumers. It includes as signers Richard John Neuhaus and Marvin Olasky. Here are the aspirations of those who designed this document.

 

·      We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order.

·      We aspire to a world in which objective moral principles—not personal prejudices—guide moral action.

·      We aspire to a world in which right reason (including sound theology and the careful use of scientific methods) guides the stewardship of human and ecological relationships.

·      We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.

·      We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people’s natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.

·      We aspire to a world in which widespread economic freedom—which is integral to private, market economies— makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.

·      We aspire to a world in which advancements in agriculture, industry, and commerce not only minimize pollution and transform most waste products into efficiently used resources but also improve the material conditions of life for people everywhere.

 

            I understand that some of these aspirations may not be for the Left-wing. They are not for that reason wrong or offensive. There ought to be room for some reasonable conversation instead of simple negation.

            I said at the beginning of this reflection that I would some terms I would prefer not to use. The use of the terms of Left-wing and Right-wing, and even extreme in front of the terms, is not one I would use apart from a context like this. I adopted it here because it is so typical of progressive writers to refer to anyone who disagrees with them as extreme Right-wing, with the recent election of a new female leader of Italy an example. Granted, her party has a checkered past, but it has renounced its fascist origin and has persuaded one-quarter of the people that they have a solution to the pressing issues the country faces. As for political parties with a checkered past, the Democrat Party has put behind it its relationship with the KKK, so we know it is possible. Such terminology, as I have tried to show here, is a form of dismissal and misdirection that denies to opposing views any legitimacy in the public square. Further, this reflection is weighted on the side of responding to the dismissal of evangelical and conservative views by this author. I present some ways one could adopt a position counter to what the author offers and do so reasonably. In a different context, I would want to add my concerns for the views of some on the right as well.

            In contrast to the progressive, and here is my hope, which may be a pipedream, a thinker can assume that behind the clash of persons, communities, and ideologies is an underlying unity. The task of thinking becomes diffing deeply enough into oneself and the other to discover the passions and desires that which unifies. Instead, most people in the public square seem energized by that which divides, an approach we might call a negative dialectic, using oppositions to separate people even further. A positive dialectic, which admits the power of the negative and its clash of oppositions, while also acknowledging the clash occurs because there are underlying commonalities that deserve exploration, is also a potentially reconciling use of dialectic. One would also be assuming that the clashing of opposing visions can become clarifying to both sides. Thus, on the practical side, and ending on a positive note, when a church has the courage, in its missional context, to use some of its land as a community garden, it may do so for reasons for which I disagree, but I can celebrate its action on behalf of its community and maybe even provide other reasons for churches of an orthodox/evangelical/conservative persuasion to do the same.