Editing Process theology (section)

== Debate about process theology's conception of God’s power ==
A criticism of process theology is that it offers a too severely diminished conception of God’s power.  Process theologians argue that God does not have unilateral, coercive control over everything in the universe.  In process theology, God cannot override a person’s freedom, nor perform miracles that violate the laws of nature, nor perform physical actions such as causing or halting a flood or an avalanche.  Critics argue that this conception diminishes divine power to such a degree that God is no longer worshipful.<ref name="John W. Cooper 2006"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Feinberg|first=John S.|author-link=John S. Feinberg|title=No one like Him: the doctrine of God|date=2006|publisher=Crossway Books|location=Wheaton. Ill.|page=178|isbn=978-1581348118|edition=Rev.}}</ref><ref>[[Roger E. Olson]], “[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/12/why-i-am-not-a-process-theologian/ Why I am Not a Process Theologian],” last modified December 4, 2013, ''Patheos.org'', accessed May 7, 2014.</ref><ref>[[David Basinger]], ''Divine Power in Process Theism'' (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), 14.</ref><ref>Al Truesdale, ''God Reconsidered'' (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2010), 21.</ref>

The process theology response to this criticism is that the traditional Christian conception of God is actually ''not'' worshipful as it stands, and that the traditional notion of God’s [[omnipotence]] fails to make sense.<ref>[[David Ray Griffin]], ''God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy'' (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 268.</ref>

First, power is a relational concept.  It is not exerted in a vacuum, but always by some entity ''A'' over some other entity ''B''.<ref>David Ray Griffin (2004). p. 265.</ref> As such, power requires analysis of both the being exerting power, and the being that power is being exerted upon.  To suppose that an entity ''A'' (in this case, God), can always successfully control any other entity ''B'' is to say, in effect, that ''B'' does not exist as a free and individual being in any meaningful sense, since there is no possibility of its resisting ''A'' if ''A'' should decide to press the issue.<ref>David Ray Griffin (2004). p. 267.</ref>

Mindful of this, process theology makes several important distinctions between different kinds of power. The first distinction is between "coercive" power and "persuasive" power.<ref name="God, Power 2004">David Ray Griffin (2004). p. 9.</ref> Coercive power is the kind that is exerted by one physical body over another, such as one billiard ball hitting another, or one arm twisting another. Lifeless bodies (such as the billiard balls) cannot resist such applications of physical force at all, and even living bodies (like arms) can only resist so far, and can be coercively overpowered.  While finite, physical creatures can exert coercive power over one another in this way, God—lacking a physical body—''cannot'' (not merely ''will'' not) exert coercive control over the world.<ref>David Ray Griffin (2004). p. 8.</ref>

But process theologians argue that coercive power is actually a secondary or derivative form of power, while persuasion is the primary form.<ref name="God, Power 2004"/> Even the act of self-motion (of an arm, for instance) is an instance of persuasive power. The arm may not perform in the way a person wishes it to—it may be broken, or asleep, or otherwise unable to perform the desired action. It is only after the persuasive act of self-motion is successful that an entity can even ''begin'' to exercise coercive control over other finite physical bodies.  But no amount of coercive control can alter the free decisions of other entities; only persuasion can do so.<ref>David Ray Griffin (2004). p. 6.</ref>

For example, a child is told by his parent that he must go to bed. The child, as a self-conscious, decision-making individual, can always make the decision to ''not'' go to bed. The parent may then respond by picking up the child bodily and carrying him to his room, but nothing can force the child to alter his decision to resist the parent's directive. It is only the ''body'' of the child that can be coercively controlled by the body of the physically stronger parent; the child's free will remains intact.  While process theologians argue that God does not have coercive power, they also argue that God has ''supreme persuasive power'', that God is always influencing/persuading us to choose the good.

One classic exchange over the issue of divine power is between philosophers [[Frederick Sontag]] and [[John K. Roth]] and process theologian [[David Ray Griffin]].<ref name="Evil 1981">David Ray Griffin, "Creation Out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil," in ''Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy'', ed. Stephen Davis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 135.</ref> Sontag and Roth argued that the process God’s inability to, for instance, stop the genocide at Auschwitz meant that God was not worthy of worship, since there is no point in worshipping a God that cannot save us from such atrocities. Griffin's response was as follows:

<blockquote>One of the stronger complaints from Sontag and Roth is that, given the enormity of evil in the world, a deity that is [merely] doing its best is not worthy of worship. The implication is that a deity that is ''not'' doing its best ''is'' worthy of worship. For example, in reference to Auschwitz, Roth mocks my God with the statement that “the best that God could possibly do was to permit 10,000 Jews a day to go up in smoke.” Roth prefers a God who had the power to prevent this Holocaust but did not do it! This illustrates how much people can differ in what they consider worthy of worship. For Roth, it is clearly brute ''power'' that evokes worship. The question is: is this what ''should'' evoke worship? To refer back to the point about revelation: is this kind of power worship consistent with the Christian claim that divinity is decisively revealed in Jesus? Roth finds my God too small to evoke worship; I find his too gross.<ref name="Evil 1981"/></blockquote>

The process argument, then, is that those who cling to the idea of God's coercive omnipotence are defending power for power's sake, which would seem to be inconsistent with the life of Jesus, who Christians believe died for humanity's sins rather than overthrow the Roman empire.  Griffin argues that it is actually the God whose omnipotence is defined in the "traditional" way that is not worshipful.<ref name="Evil 1981"/>

One other distinction process theologians make is between the idea of "unilateral" power versus "relational" power.<ref name="Relational Power">C. Robert Mesle, "[http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/relational-power.html Relational Power] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824230235/http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/relational-power.html |date=2017-08-24 }}," ''JesusJazzBuddhism.org'', accessed May 7, 2014.</ref>   Unilateral power is the power of a king (or more accurately, a tyrant) who wishes to exert control over his subjects ''without'' being affected ''by'' them.<ref>[[Schubert M. Ogden]], ''The Reality of God and Other Essays'' (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992), 51.</ref>   However, most people would agree that a ruler who is not changed or affected by the joys and sorrows of his subjects is actually a despicable ruler and a psychopath.<ref>Charles Hartshorne, "Kant's Traditionalism," in ''Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers: An Evaluation of Western Philosophy'', ed. Charles Hartshorne (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 174.</ref>   Process theologians thus stress that God’s power is relational; rather than being unaffected and unchanged by the world, God is the being ''most'' affected by every other being in the universe.<ref>Charles Hartshorne, ''The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 58.</ref> As process theologian C. Robert Mesle puts it:

<blockquote>Relational power takes great strength.  In stark contrast to unilateral power, the radical  manifestations of relational power are found in people like [[Martin Luther King Jr.]], [[Mahatma Gandhi]], and [[Jesus]]. It requires the willingness to endure tremendous suffering while refusing to hate.  It demands that we keep our hearts open to those who wish to slam them shut. It means offering to open up a relationship with people who hate us, despise us, and wish to destroy us.<ref name="Relational Power"/></blockquote>

In summation, then, process theologians argue that their conception of God’s power does not diminish God, but just the opposite.  Rather than see God as one who unilaterally coerces other beings, judges and punishes them, and is completely unaffected by the joys and sorrows of others, process theologians see God as the one who persuades the universe to love and peace, is supremely affected by even the tiniest of joys and the smallest of sorrows, and is able to love all beings despite the most heinous acts they may commit.  God is, as Whitehead says, "the fellow sufferer who understands."<ref>[[Alfred North Whitehead]], ''[[Process and Reality]]'' (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 351.</ref>