What do you think?
Rate this book
Process Theology: A Basic Introduction
Book by Mesle, Dr. Robert
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
21 people are currently reading
160 people want to read
About the author
C. Robert Mesle
7Ìýbooks5ÌýfollowersC. Robert Mesle is a recognized authority on process thought and the author of the acclaimed Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (1993), the most widely read introduction to process theology. A professor and chair of the philosophy and religion department of Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa, he received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. He is a board member of the International Process Network and the China Project of the Center for Process Studies and serves on the editorial boards of the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy and Process Studies. He resides in Lamoni, Iowa.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 22, 2014
This is the closest I've come to reading a book on Christianity and agreeing with almost all of is doctrinal assertions.
a beautiful book on religion while being 100% rational.
a beautiful book on religion while being 100% rational.
September 24, 2021
Thoughtful. Insightful. Affirming.
I would summarize process theology as a way to fuse contemporary ethics and science with the centuries-old belief that God created the world and loves that Creation. Mesle has created an excellent primer about this school of philosophy, one that seeks to address fundamental questions such as, "If the God of traditional Christianity knows exactly what's happening throughout time and across the whole of creation, why doesn't God do anything when a tragedy occurs?"
Process theology would answer: "God knows all of the possible outcomes of each situation, but God also can't violate the principles of the natural universe to fix the problem. If God did that, then there would be no free will for humans. They would not have freedom to act. God doesn't want that tragedy to occur, and God gives humans the freedom to act to prevent the tragedy from occurring entirely or stop it when things start getting bad."
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church where I was taught that God did favor one group of people over another. As I got older, I realized that to be a toxic and harmful way to view and interact with the world. Process theology gives me a more enlightened and ethical lens by which I can analyze why bad stuff happens in the world.
To be clear, I'm a newbie when it comes to this school of philosophy and theology. However, process theology does make much more sense to me than a God who sits back and lets things happen because the people experiencing that tragedy weren't good enough Christians or had offended God in some way.
In short, this book doesn't purport to have all the answers. It truly is an introduction to the core tenets of process theology, and it comes with a host of references to deeper books on the subject. I plan to read more of them and discuss them with trusted friends.
I would summarize process theology as a way to fuse contemporary ethics and science with the centuries-old belief that God created the world and loves that Creation. Mesle has created an excellent primer about this school of philosophy, one that seeks to address fundamental questions such as, "If the God of traditional Christianity knows exactly what's happening throughout time and across the whole of creation, why doesn't God do anything when a tragedy occurs?"
Process theology would answer: "God knows all of the possible outcomes of each situation, but God also can't violate the principles of the natural universe to fix the problem. If God did that, then there would be no free will for humans. They would not have freedom to act. God doesn't want that tragedy to occur, and God gives humans the freedom to act to prevent the tragedy from occurring entirely or stop it when things start getting bad."
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church where I was taught that God did favor one group of people over another. As I got older, I realized that to be a toxic and harmful way to view and interact with the world. Process theology gives me a more enlightened and ethical lens by which I can analyze why bad stuff happens in the world.
To be clear, I'm a newbie when it comes to this school of philosophy and theology. However, process theology does make much more sense to me than a God who sits back and lets things happen because the people experiencing that tragedy weren't good enough Christians or had offended God in some way.
In short, this book doesn't purport to have all the answers. It truly is an introduction to the core tenets of process theology, and it comes with a host of references to deeper books on the subject. I plan to read more of them and discuss them with trusted friends.
March 30, 2021
Ehhhhhh Just couldn't get into this one... Too much opinion, not enough factual information.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Process Theology, " by C. Robert Mesle and the last chapter written by John Cobb.
Below when I use the word transcend and variants I am not using it in what I take to be the traditional way which, to me, insinuates not just "otherness" but also, if not mainly "distance away." Here I use it to speak about God not being able to transcend the God-nature barrier to break into reality as God.
Before I begin I have to admit that from what I know of Process Theology (henceforth PT) begins with demerit. My understanding is that because God is unable to transcend some barrier between Him and His creation. I believe at process theologian would say that "God is in everything," and while I agree that He is what becomes of Christology if God is equally in all things? If God is equally in all things but limited in transcendeing from "Him to us," then anything from the incarnation to the resurrection to miracles and the indwelling of the Spirit are impossible. This removes not just the very core of the Christian Kerygma but also impacts (my, at least) theodicy since it keeps the interaction and attacks from evil from likewise transcending this barrier.
One thing I find interesting is that he predicates PT on "God is love" (I agree) but has huge tension with scripture. It seems disingenuous to pick and choose from scripture in this way.
So far I agree with much of what he states about PT. God works synergistically with humanity for good. God doesnt determine evil. God knows all that can be known and all of the possibilities that make up all peoples futures. As far as open and relational theologies go this is on point. I disagree with God is co-eternal with the universe. I believe this works it's way out to saying that God is contingent and the universe is necessary. He has yet to state that God has always been creating. So historically there was never a time when there wasnt a universe banging into creation or collapsing out of it only to bang back in. While I dont claim to be philosophically minded I believe the problem this faces is that one "cant cross the infinite," or if the universe always was we would have never arrived at now.
The next question asked has to do with theodicy. This is truly the strongest point of PT. The answer, because of the aforementioned divide between God and creation is just that it is outside of Gods power to do so. (As an aside, if someone goes through tragedies and PT "works" at that moment I wont disagree with their theology.) I believe an enchanted [or dualistic warfare], view does the same thing while allowing God to retain His power according to the reality He created. Or, to state it differently, as God creates free (libertarian freewill) creatures, spiritual and physical, He gives up a bit of His freedom. To allow us to choose and respecting that choice creates a place God isn't free: in free agents. So as free physical agents make choices based on the inspiration of other physical and spiritual free agents, good or bad, God engages in battle to sway all for good. God doesnt always get His way. I do believe there are times God wins the battle and sometimes this manifest by way of miracles; sometimes it may just be me leaving work five minutes late and avoiding a car wreck.
While I fully agree when he says "We should not behave like the God of classical theology," p 24 (you always emulate the model of God you serve) I dont believe one need defulat to PT to accomplish this.
In the next chapter dealing with the relationality of God I agree so far for the most part. The platonic model of God was superimposed on the God of the bible so that even though scripture tells us God experience pain and change this doesnt fit the model we have from the Greeks so we must mold God to look what our view of God is (called dignum Deo--God must have every quality I can imagine if He is God). I believe God did so much to squash this view. But we cant have a suffering God so we say that the pain Christ felt on the cross (in spirit and in body) has to be attributed to His human nature, and the Father must not feel this. We are told that Christ is the very image of God so we must not divide the hypostatic union to form God to look in a way that makes us comfortable. God hurts with you and identifies with your pain.
By the way he speaks it sounds like PT is panentheistic. Not that I disagree. He did speak about the "reign of God" but didnt elaborate on any PT eschatology. I am very interested to see where he goes with that if anywhere.
Later in covering eschatology he says that we have no claim to victory, we hope for it and it may happen but we cant be positive.
Revelation for PT sees every person equal as far as the Divine is "in" them and therefore everyone is a prophet. But with each person being different in nature and nurture will state what the Divine wants differently; some closer to what the Divine wants than others. Who we uniquely are determined how well we hear the God who is there. Personally I believe that is a bit rough. How I see revelation is not as nice and neat as many but it isnt as broad as stated in this work.
He shows that between dogmatism and radical relativism is a happy medium he calls committed relativism. My frustration is that so far he has not stated in what way or relationship this committed relativism is to be applied. Is it legal, is it communal, or is it just individual in how I treat others who hold different values than I do? For instance, I am against governmental instituted positive obligations, but communally (Church) they may, sooner or later, have a place. Personally or individually, I can have whichever opinion or value judgement about another I want, though what I do with that opinion could then make it someone else's problem. But I fully agree with him that radical relativism and dogmatism are horrible extremes for one to hoist onto another. After working with the concept it seems this is a suggestion of perspective which is individually applied and fostered in a familial sense. It means being accepting of those who are different.
He dives into pluralism in what I would call a "Christ level with others" view, whereas I would affirm "Christ on top," pluralism.
The next chapter deals with Christology. This will be interesting. I believe that when I have seen pluralism of this nature the first thing to take a nosedive would be the divinity of Jesus. It is hard to place the PT articulation of Christology: maybe a progressively adoptionist Christology? It also seems that the PT view of the atonement is totally subjective--the death of Christ makes me want to be a more.moral person. What else does PT leave out of this event?--the resurrection. Trying to be kind, if Deism is the first step out of theism to atheism, PT is a gateway to deism. The good side is that it works both ways and can be a gateway out of atheism. I know PT would hate my drawing these dark lines using words like "gateway" with the drug label implicit. It isnt my intent. I want to see PT as it presents itself. I want to find the good where it is. One of those goods in my mind is leading naturalists over the gap between theism and atheism. Yeah, you do not seem to accept the resurrection, I take issue with that.
His chapter on prayer revealed something interesting it has in common with Augustinianism: we dont pray to change God, we pray to change us. Augustinianism says that God drew the blueprint for all of reality so praying would just be asking for God to make happen what He has written will already happen. So we pray to change us, i.e. devotion. In PT God is always working like a dedicated parent and it is impossible for God to influence the situation any more than He currently is. So we pray to change us, i.e. devotion. The above is where one seems to land when their theology is deeply indebted to philosophy.
The section on miracles seems to say with one breath that God can not transcend into the natural, while at the same time since God is panentheistically in everything He is ever working towards a miracle. While I appreciate how this places God in a position that He is always trying to heal, it also reduces "miracle" to the every day and everything; it is the philosophical version of everyone gets a trophy hence making the word miracle have no real meaning.
To be honest, as stated above, this would really appeal to, for instance, a scientifically interested atheist. If it is just an entrance to Christianity as a relationship with God then that's good. I would hope they wouldnt stay there because of Christological, eschatological and atoning reasons.
Below when I use the word transcend and variants I am not using it in what I take to be the traditional way which, to me, insinuates not just "otherness" but also, if not mainly "distance away." Here I use it to speak about God not being able to transcend the God-nature barrier to break into reality as God.
Before I begin I have to admit that from what I know of Process Theology (henceforth PT) begins with demerit. My understanding is that because God is unable to transcend some barrier between Him and His creation. I believe at process theologian would say that "God is in everything," and while I agree that He is what becomes of Christology if God is equally in all things? If God is equally in all things but limited in transcendeing from "Him to us," then anything from the incarnation to the resurrection to miracles and the indwelling of the Spirit are impossible. This removes not just the very core of the Christian Kerygma but also impacts (my, at least) theodicy since it keeps the interaction and attacks from evil from likewise transcending this barrier.
One thing I find interesting is that he predicates PT on "God is love" (I agree) but has huge tension with scripture. It seems disingenuous to pick and choose from scripture in this way.
So far I agree with much of what he states about PT. God works synergistically with humanity for good. God doesnt determine evil. God knows all that can be known and all of the possibilities that make up all peoples futures. As far as open and relational theologies go this is on point. I disagree with God is co-eternal with the universe. I believe this works it's way out to saying that God is contingent and the universe is necessary. He has yet to state that God has always been creating. So historically there was never a time when there wasnt a universe banging into creation or collapsing out of it only to bang back in. While I dont claim to be philosophically minded I believe the problem this faces is that one "cant cross the infinite," or if the universe always was we would have never arrived at now.
The next question asked has to do with theodicy. This is truly the strongest point of PT. The answer, because of the aforementioned divide between God and creation is just that it is outside of Gods power to do so. (As an aside, if someone goes through tragedies and PT "works" at that moment I wont disagree with their theology.) I believe an enchanted [or dualistic warfare], view does the same thing while allowing God to retain His power according to the reality He created. Or, to state it differently, as God creates free (libertarian freewill) creatures, spiritual and physical, He gives up a bit of His freedom. To allow us to choose and respecting that choice creates a place God isn't free: in free agents. So as free physical agents make choices based on the inspiration of other physical and spiritual free agents, good or bad, God engages in battle to sway all for good. God doesnt always get His way. I do believe there are times God wins the battle and sometimes this manifest by way of miracles; sometimes it may just be me leaving work five minutes late and avoiding a car wreck.
While I fully agree when he says "We should not behave like the God of classical theology," p 24 (you always emulate the model of God you serve) I dont believe one need defulat to PT to accomplish this.
In the next chapter dealing with the relationality of God I agree so far for the most part. The platonic model of God was superimposed on the God of the bible so that even though scripture tells us God experience pain and change this doesnt fit the model we have from the Greeks so we must mold God to look what our view of God is (called dignum Deo--God must have every quality I can imagine if He is God). I believe God did so much to squash this view. But we cant have a suffering God so we say that the pain Christ felt on the cross (in spirit and in body) has to be attributed to His human nature, and the Father must not feel this. We are told that Christ is the very image of God so we must not divide the hypostatic union to form God to look in a way that makes us comfortable. God hurts with you and identifies with your pain.
By the way he speaks it sounds like PT is panentheistic. Not that I disagree. He did speak about the "reign of God" but didnt elaborate on any PT eschatology. I am very interested to see where he goes with that if anywhere.
Later in covering eschatology he says that we have no claim to victory, we hope for it and it may happen but we cant be positive.
Revelation for PT sees every person equal as far as the Divine is "in" them and therefore everyone is a prophet. But with each person being different in nature and nurture will state what the Divine wants differently; some closer to what the Divine wants than others. Who we uniquely are determined how well we hear the God who is there. Personally I believe that is a bit rough. How I see revelation is not as nice and neat as many but it isnt as broad as stated in this work.
He shows that between dogmatism and radical relativism is a happy medium he calls committed relativism. My frustration is that so far he has not stated in what way or relationship this committed relativism is to be applied. Is it legal, is it communal, or is it just individual in how I treat others who hold different values than I do? For instance, I am against governmental instituted positive obligations, but communally (Church) they may, sooner or later, have a place. Personally or individually, I can have whichever opinion or value judgement about another I want, though what I do with that opinion could then make it someone else's problem. But I fully agree with him that radical relativism and dogmatism are horrible extremes for one to hoist onto another. After working with the concept it seems this is a suggestion of perspective which is individually applied and fostered in a familial sense. It means being accepting of those who are different.
He dives into pluralism in what I would call a "Christ level with others" view, whereas I would affirm "Christ on top," pluralism.
The next chapter deals with Christology. This will be interesting. I believe that when I have seen pluralism of this nature the first thing to take a nosedive would be the divinity of Jesus. It is hard to place the PT articulation of Christology: maybe a progressively adoptionist Christology? It also seems that the PT view of the atonement is totally subjective--the death of Christ makes me want to be a more.moral person. What else does PT leave out of this event?--the resurrection. Trying to be kind, if Deism is the first step out of theism to atheism, PT is a gateway to deism. The good side is that it works both ways and can be a gateway out of atheism. I know PT would hate my drawing these dark lines using words like "gateway" with the drug label implicit. It isnt my intent. I want to see PT as it presents itself. I want to find the good where it is. One of those goods in my mind is leading naturalists over the gap between theism and atheism. Yeah, you do not seem to accept the resurrection, I take issue with that.
His chapter on prayer revealed something interesting it has in common with Augustinianism: we dont pray to change God, we pray to change us. Augustinianism says that God drew the blueprint for all of reality so praying would just be asking for God to make happen what He has written will already happen. So we pray to change us, i.e. devotion. In PT God is always working like a dedicated parent and it is impossible for God to influence the situation any more than He currently is. So we pray to change us, i.e. devotion. The above is where one seems to land when their theology is deeply indebted to philosophy.
The section on miracles seems to say with one breath that God can not transcend into the natural, while at the same time since God is panentheistically in everything He is ever working towards a miracle. While I appreciate how this places God in a position that He is always trying to heal, it also reduces "miracle" to the every day and everything; it is the philosophical version of everyone gets a trophy hence making the word miracle have no real meaning.
To be honest, as stated above, this would really appeal to, for instance, a scientifically interested atheist. If it is just an entrance to Christianity as a relationship with God then that's good. I would hope they wouldnt stay there because of Christological, eschatological and atoning reasons.
January 11, 2020
Process thought can be a bit complex to understand and since it's an idea that's more visible in more academic philosophy and theology, it's not always the most digestible writing. Mesle does an excellent job in introducing the subject and through I'm more of a layman interested in theology rather than a full time academic, I found the book fairly easy to follow along though some sections take more time to take in.
Process theology is a very different way to view reality and much of what it proposes is extremely exciting when seeing how it is superior in some areas in which classical theology falls short (theodicy, science, etc.). However, like every model of reality, there are still troubling implications in looking at the world in this way. Also, I found the book fell short in connecting process theology to Christology and pneumatology in any substantive way. I hope to find other work that does a better job in this area. That being said, I think it's a great introductory volume to read before reading more advanced works.
Process theology is a very different way to view reality and much of what it proposes is extremely exciting when seeing how it is superior in some areas in which classical theology falls short (theodicy, science, etc.). However, like every model of reality, there are still troubling implications in looking at the world in this way. Also, I found the book fell short in connecting process theology to Christology and pneumatology in any substantive way. I hope to find other work that does a better job in this area. That being said, I think it's a great introductory volume to read before reading more advanced works.
August 20, 2020
4 stars because it really is a primer.
Process Theology is a model for thinking about the concept of God. It deconstructs a God of unilateral power with eternal perspective and describes an interelational God acting with relational power acting in the present to create a possible future. It essentially panetheistic, that God is in us and we are in God, that humanity and creation from atomic to cellular to our whole self are agents to act within our historical cultural context and are in the process of making those choices in alignment with God.
It embraces liberation theology, feminist theology, religious pluralism, and finds meaning in this world, in this present, that is seeking to create a vibrant nonoppressive future on earth.
It's very grounded in reality and can be closely paralleled with process naturalism which is devoid of 'God' for those who cannot or do not find the idea or concept of God helpful or beneficial.
Process Theology is a model for thinking about the concept of God. It deconstructs a God of unilateral power with eternal perspective and describes an interelational God acting with relational power acting in the present to create a possible future. It essentially panetheistic, that God is in us and we are in God, that humanity and creation from atomic to cellular to our whole self are agents to act within our historical cultural context and are in the process of making those choices in alignment with God.
It embraces liberation theology, feminist theology, religious pluralism, and finds meaning in this world, in this present, that is seeking to create a vibrant nonoppressive future on earth.
It's very grounded in reality and can be closely paralleled with process naturalism which is devoid of 'God' for those who cannot or do not find the idea or concept of God helpful or beneficial.
July 25, 2021
Just finished Process Theology: A Basic Introduction by Bob Mesle which I would have read had I taken more courses in undergrad from Dr. Mesle, and that was a mistake, but it’s never too late to learn. Thus, I shall attempt to summarize: Process thinkers propose that God is love and working through us to create good in the world. The future is not predestined, and although God constantly tries to bring about good in the world, this power is persuasive, not coercive. This system of thought also embraces feminism, as well as the worth of all animals and nature. Process Naturalism proposes the idea that the world consists of finite creatures (no God), and Process Theists believe in God. This work was incredibly digestible, and the ideas were logically and artistically presented. I guess I saw the realm of philosophy and religion as opaque and intimidating, but I was doing myself a disservice (and underestimating my teachers). Being able to wrestle with the big questions is a privilege.
July 20, 2024
Before there was process theology there was process philosophy by Alfred North White head, who my father recommended. I was asked if process theology was Christian. Actually that depends on your orthodoxy. If you believe Boethius and Aristotle were right and God was unchanging in eternal perfection well no, process theology doesn't believe that. If you are open to the possibilitiy God partakes in creation and experiences suffering with the suffering and changes with compassion then process theology might speak to you. Then decide for yourself what texts it fits for yourself. Abandon your proof texts all who enter here. So try this one: not even the passing of a sparrow goes unnoticed. But read Boethius Consolation of Philosophy too. Look it up and see all the famous names who have thought it important enough to translate. A particle contains contradictions.
February 12, 2021
Mesle wrote an extremely accessible introduction to process thought and process theology.
Mesle charts the usual weaknesses and problems in classical Christian theology, influenced as it is by Western, extra-biblical notions of power, control, and impassibility. He is most helpful on introducing core elements of process thought - change and relationship as constants in all things - and in the liberative power of a process approach to faith. Given that Mesle is a naturalist, not a lover of God himself, he is unsurprisingly somewhat less insightful on a process approach to faith in God, but the closing essay he included by John Cobb addresses this very well and rounds out this short, simple text very well.
Mesle charts the usual weaknesses and problems in classical Christian theology, influenced as it is by Western, extra-biblical notions of power, control, and impassibility. He is most helpful on introducing core elements of process thought - change and relationship as constants in all things - and in the liberative power of a process approach to faith. Given that Mesle is a naturalist, not a lover of God himself, he is unsurprisingly somewhat less insightful on a process approach to faith in God, but the closing essay he included by John Cobb addresses this very well and rounds out this short, simple text very well.
July 19, 2022
This is an accessible introduction to process theology as well as process thought and process naturalism. I once heard someone say, “Process theology is interesting. It’s just that it isn’t Christian.� It certainly isn’t Christian in the way that ive learned Christian theology. For me, the toughest thing to get around is that the god of process theology is not personal as I understand personal put more like a force…process. If you’re interested in process theology or at least in learning more, read the book.
November 2, 2014
Well written and compelling, but ultimately fails to articulate what makes process theology distinctly Christian � or, for that matter, distinctly theistic. Elements of process theology are intriguing and could � perhaps should � be integrated into Christian thought, but the structure as a whole seems to hollow out the significance of the Christ event.
November 28, 2015
A fantastic introduction to a fascinating idea. This great intro hooked me into more advanced studies of process theology, which in my opinion is a very good practical theology for dealing modern questions.
January 10, 2009
A hopeful, rational book.
June 1, 2012
Rocked my world. A very hopeful, open and optimistic book.
Read
May 29, 2015An approachable introduction to the topic of Process Philosophy and a hopeful tone for its application to real world problems. 3.22 Martinie glasses
October 15, 2015
Great & practical primer on a tough theo-philosophical subject! Good job, Mesle!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.