Comments on: Living in Process: V-13 Evil: An Entrapping Web http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/ Ruminations on culture, religion, and politics from diverse perspectives of faith. Sun, 16 May 2010 15:20:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Lee Crawford http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/comment-page-1/#comment-179 Lee Crawford Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:21:58 +0000 http://currentsoffaith.com/?p=46#comment-179 Dear Bob, Thanks for the reply. My thinking about your comments has been delayed by a nine day pleasure trip to the Ozarks (lousy fall color this year but lots of fun and interesting things to do and see) from our home in Wichita, KS. I welcomed your admission that you too have trouble with basic doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, and I can understand why and how you are able to stick with a church. As I gradually moved away from orthodox positions over thirty years, I too was able to continue to worship with our congregation. Nobody has asked or even suggested that I leave the church. In the last five years it's been my own sense of discomfort at trying to worship with people, the vast majority of whom believe so differently from me. I've recently read the two "Wrestling" books by Paul Ingram and find great affinity with his idea of true pluralism. If I understood him correctly, he believes that both exclusivist and most inclusivist Christians are in error. Even though inclusivists say that people who don't have any knowledge or belief in Jesus Christ will ultimately be saved, most of those inclusivists still believe that the event of Jesus Christ is somehow key to the salvation of all people. Ingram does not accept that belief, feeling that other ways of "wrestling with the ox", or searching for a way of salvation, have validity too, completely without regard for Christian doctrine. His approach has helped me clarify where I stand. Regarding our discussion of sin and evil, I certainly agree that God accepts us even when we inevitably sin or deviate from the best of all possible paths God has offered us (at an unconscious level) through God's initial aim. And I agree that God never offers us an aim that is meant to punish us for our wayward ways. Since God's power is persuasive, God's initial aims sometimes can only offer the best of various bad options that are offered us by the inherited past. God is never responsible for evil, for God always tries to wring the best result out of the options facing all actual entities. (Robert Mesle does a great job of making this point clearly and simply in his recent book Process Relational Philosophy.) I'm not sure you and I are quite together on what constitutes evil. For me, evil is a result of events, regardless of whether there was evil intent involved in the events. Evil is undeserved, destructive suffering and will inevitably (and perhaps necessarily?) arise out of our condition of finitude even when sin is not involved. So I would have to say the devastation of hurricanes is evil. Perhaps we could distinguish two kinds of evil, intentional (which could also be labeled sin) and unintentional (often called natural evil). My feeling for the pervasiveness of evil in a finite world may be influenced by long brooding for Buddha's first noble truth (All life is suffering.), though I don't totally agree with that because I think much joy is also present in life. What I do get from that noble truth is life's inescapability from undeserved, destructive suffering, or, in short, from "evil." I think you are right in suggesting there are degrees of evil, both qualitatively (the intensity of suffering) and quantitatively (the extent or reach of suffering or violation among the living and nonliving creation). Best wishes as the search goes on. Lee Dear Bob,
Thanks for the reply. My thinking about your comments has been delayed by a nine day pleasure trip to the Ozarks (lousy fall color this year but lots of fun and interesting things to do and see) from our home in Wichita, KS.
I welcomed your admission that you too have trouble with basic doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, and I can understand why and how you are able to stick with a church. As I gradually moved away from orthodox positions over thirty years, I too was able to continue to worship with our congregation. Nobody has asked or even suggested that I leave the church. In the last five years it’s been my own sense of discomfort at trying to worship with people, the vast majority of whom believe so differently from me.
I’ve recently read the two “Wrestling” books by Paul Ingram and find great affinity with his idea of true pluralism. If I understood him correctly, he believes that both exclusivist and most inclusivist Christians are in error. Even though inclusivists say that people who don’t have any knowledge or belief in Jesus Christ will ultimately be saved, most of those inclusivists still believe that the event of Jesus Christ is somehow key to the salvation of all people. Ingram does not accept that belief, feeling that other ways of “wrestling with the ox”, or searching for a way of salvation, have validity too, completely without regard for Christian doctrine. His approach has helped me clarify where I stand.
Regarding our discussion of sin and evil, I certainly agree that God accepts us even when we inevitably sin or deviate from the best of all possible paths God has offered us (at an unconscious level) through God’s initial aim. And I agree that God never offers us an aim that is meant to punish us for our wayward ways. Since God’s power is persuasive, God’s initial aims sometimes can only offer the best of various bad options that are offered us by the inherited past. God is never responsible for evil, for God always tries to wring the best result out of the options facing all actual entities. (Robert Mesle does a great job of making this point clearly and simply in his recent book Process Relational Philosophy.)
I’m not sure you and I are quite together on what constitutes evil. For me, evil is a result of events, regardless of whether there was evil intent involved in the events. Evil is undeserved, destructive suffering and will inevitably (and perhaps necessarily?) arise out of our condition of finitude even when sin is not involved. So I would have to say the devastation of hurricanes is evil. Perhaps we could distinguish two kinds of evil, intentional (which could also be labeled sin) and unintentional (often called natural evil). My feeling for the pervasiveness of evil in a finite world may be influenced by long brooding for Buddha’s first noble truth (All life is suffering.), though I don’t totally agree with that because I think much joy is also present in life. What I do get from that noble truth is life’s inescapability from undeserved, destructive suffering, or, in short, from “evil.”
I think you are right in suggesting there are degrees of evil, both qualitatively (the intensity of suffering) and quantitatively (the extent or reach of suffering or violation among the living and nonliving creation).

Best wishes as the search goes on. Lee

]]> By: Robert Brizee http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/comment-page-1/#comment-178 Robert Brizee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:04:58 +0000 http://currentsoffaith.com/?p=46#comment-178 Dear Lee: Pardon my delay in responding. I have been knocking on doors, many doors, for my political party AND we had a recent garage sale, more accurately mini-storage sale, as we were finally able to shred all our clinical records after eight years and can end that storage. I think we are in the same boat. I am not a professional theologian since I do not earn my living by teaching and creating theology. I do affirm that all of us are theologians in that we create our own understanding of God and the world. You and I have theological training through attending seminary. Adrienne and I have led a Sunday morning adult class for about 30 years so can understand you sense of belonging. I think we are similar also in our difficulties with the trinity. I say I am a Christian who follows Jesus, his aphorisms, parables and actions. I have serious reservations about the work of the later church, beginning with Nicaea. I will not allow Christian trinitarians place me outside the church. I would encourage you not to label yourself an apostate! I affirm that there will always be sin in the lives of humans since we will in many instances decide in ways less than those proposed by God for that occasion. Believing in grace, I think God accepts us and considers us precious even though we choose the lesser way. The prodigal is a favorite parable of mine. I do not think that transformation results in no sin thereafter. Perhaps we need different words for the devestation of hurricanes. I do not see an intentional decision in that mass of occasions. Perhaps we could pose degrees of evil from the intentional human action to the actions resulting from a massive number of tiny occasions. Maybe the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, yet I still feel the latter. I sense those little occasions seek to actualize themselves without any awareness of the consequences. And most of the time their aim appears to be repeating the past. I presume that we would both affirm that it is not God's aim to gather all those little occasions into a powerful and destructive force to punish humans. Alas, we do hear these interpretations. I hope that we have moved our discussion along a few steps. Grace and Peace, BOB Dear Lee:

Pardon my delay in responding. I have been knocking on doors, many doors, for my political party AND we had a recent garage sale, more accurately mini-storage sale, as we were finally able to shred all our clinical records after eight years and can end that storage.

I think we are in the same boat. I am not a professional theologian since I do not earn my living by teaching and creating theology. I do affirm that all of us are theologians in that we create our own understanding of God and the world. You and I have theological training through attending seminary.

Adrienne and I have led a Sunday morning adult class for about 30 years so can understand you sense of belonging.
I think we are similar also in our difficulties with the trinity. I say I am a Christian who follows Jesus, his aphorisms, parables and actions. I have serious reservations about the work of the later church, beginning with Nicaea. I will not allow Christian trinitarians place me outside the church. I would encourage you not to label yourself an apostate!

I affirm that there will always be sin in the lives of humans since we will in many instances decide in ways less than those proposed by God for that occasion. Believing in grace, I think God accepts us and considers us precious even though we choose the lesser way. The prodigal is a favorite parable of mine. I do not think that transformation results in no sin thereafter.

Perhaps we need different words for the devestation of hurricanes. I do not see an intentional decision in that mass of occasions. Perhaps we could pose degrees of evil from the intentional human action to the actions resulting from a massive number of tiny occasions. Maybe the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, yet I still feel the latter. I sense those little occasions seek to actualize themselves without any awareness of the consequences. And most of the time their aim appears to be repeating the past.

I presume that we would both affirm that it is not God’s aim to gather all those little occasions into a powerful and destructive force to punish humans. Alas, we do hear these interpretations.

I hope that we have moved our discussion along a few steps.

Grace and Peace, BOB

]]> By: Lee Crawford http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/comment-page-1/#comment-174 Lee Crawford Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:45:49 +0000 http://currentsoffaith.com/?p=46#comment-174 Dear Bob, I very much appreciated your reply to my concerns and your invitation to continue our exchange. The problem of evil is a huge chunk of food for thought, of course, but maybe we can nibble away at it in ways that will be mutually enlightening. Before I respond to your response, in fairness to you I should offer a little of my background so you can get some feel for where I'm coming from. In my original comment I referred to myself as an "amateur in theology." When I wrote that, I was comparing myself to such notables as John Cobb, David Griffin, and Marjorie Suchocki. In reality, I suppose I belong in some sort of purgatory between simple amateur and complex academic professional (I'll leave it to you to decide which state of becoming - amateur or professional - represents heaven and which represents hell). I do have some formal theological/philosopical training: my undergraduate degree was in humanities and philosophy and I earned a B.D. degree (1964)and was ordained into the ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and spent a couple of years as a co-minister in a church in Kentucky. My career path since then has primarily been in the public secondary school/community college teaching of English. Though I was introduced to a bit of Whitehead as an undergraduate and to a bit of Whitehead and Hartshorne in seminary, I've never had any classes or other formal instruction in process thought. Lingering doubts about the doctrines of the trinity and the two natures of Christ along with something of a spiritual crisis when I was in my mid thirties led me back to process thought, and through reading over the last thirty-five years, I've become firmly embedded in that worldview (but I still have tons of questions about many details of process thought). Though I continue to nominally belong to the Presbyterian church my wife Margaret and I joined forty years ago, I've slowly evolved into a unitarian theologically. Though I feel rather hypocritical about remaining on the Presbyterian rolls and quite uncomfortable worshipping in that context, I remain in that church for two reasons, both social: Margaret doesn't want to leave and most of our best friends are in an adult Sunday-school/monthly-social-activity class we've belonged to all those forty years. Hope this helps as we continue our exchange. I didn't find much at all in your response that I would disagree with, but in going beyond a couple of your statements at this time in my evolution, I probably would come to some different conclusions than you would. I certainly agree that such natural disasters as tornadoes, tsunamis, and volcanoes have no intention of being evil. They are masses of an uncountable number of actual entities coordinated by natural laws inherited from their pasts, I suppose you could say, and they are simply playing out their destiny without conscious decision making. The role of God's initial aims in such actual entities does puzzle me a little (or a lot). Does God's creative role in such events as tornadoes and volcanoes involve God in ambiguity? (Every now and then I reread Bernard Loomer's essay "The Size of God" and am fascinated by his discussion of possible ambiguity in the life of God, but I sure don't know what to make of that yet.) Anyway, back to natural phenonema that we call disasters. From their perspective, they are just going about their own creative business according to their inherited pasts and whatever modicum of novelty might be injected from God's initial aims and from their own subjective immediacies, if I understand the working of concrescence properly. These phenonema have no conscious intention of causing or being evil. But from the perspective of human beings in the path of these phenonema, evil does occur in the form of violence (to use one of Suchocki's terms) that results in destructive suffering. So though there was no evil intention or sin involved in those events, for a part of the world extreme evil is a consequence of the events. On the other hand, conscious (or self-conscious?) acts of human beings (and perhaps some animals with central nervous systems, as you suggest) that result in destructive suffering or violence are certainly evil acts in and of themselves, as you say. It is those acts that I say are the result of sin. As I listen to people discuss in my Sunday school class (which, by the way, includes a wide spectrum of theological viewpoints ranging from the rigidly ultra conservative to the quite liberal to an apostate like me), I find most of these Christians presuppose that all would be hunky-dory in the world if we could only get rid of sin. Get rid of sin and we would have heaven on earth, they seem to feel. I don't buy that, and I think process thought leads logically to my conclusion. I don't see how a world of finite entities, many with competing/conflicting agendas, can ever achieve peace, bliss, etc., even without sin. This could lead us into a discussion of salvation that is relevant to the most interesting presentation you offer in Chapter 18, but I have gone on too long already. Thanks again for this opportunity to pick your brain and get your reactions. Lee Dear Bob,
I very much appreciated your reply to my concerns and your invitation to continue our exchange. The problem of evil is a huge chunk of food for thought, of course, but maybe we can nibble away at it in ways that will be mutually enlightening.
Before I respond to your response, in fairness to you I should offer a little of my background so you can get some feel for where I’m coming from. In my original comment I referred to myself as an “amateur in theology.” When I wrote that, I was comparing myself to such notables as John Cobb, David Griffin, and Marjorie Suchocki. In reality, I suppose I belong in some sort of purgatory between simple amateur and complex academic professional (I’ll leave it to you to decide which state of becoming – amateur or professional – represents heaven and which represents hell). I do have some formal theological/philosopical training: my undergraduate degree was in humanities and philosophy and I earned a B.D. degree (1964)and was ordained into the ministry of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and spent a couple of years as a co-minister in a church in Kentucky. My career path since then has primarily been in the public secondary school/community college teaching of English. Though I was introduced to a bit of Whitehead as an undergraduate and to a bit of Whitehead and Hartshorne in seminary, I’ve never had any classes or other formal instruction in process thought. Lingering doubts about the doctrines of the trinity and the two natures of Christ along with something of a spiritual crisis when I was in my mid thirties led me back to process thought, and through reading over the last thirty-five years, I’ve become firmly embedded in that worldview (but I still have tons of questions about many details of process thought). Though I continue to nominally belong to the Presbyterian church my wife Margaret and I joined forty years ago, I’ve slowly evolved into a unitarian theologically. Though I feel rather hypocritical about remaining on the Presbyterian rolls and quite uncomfortable worshipping in that context, I remain in that church for two reasons, both social: Margaret doesn’t want to leave and most of our best friends are in an adult Sunday-school/monthly-social-activity class we’ve belonged to all those forty years. Hope this helps as we continue our exchange.
I didn’t find much at all in your response that I would disagree with, but in going beyond a couple of your statements at this time in my evolution, I probably would come to some different conclusions than you would. I certainly agree that such natural disasters as tornadoes, tsunamis, and volcanoes have no intention of being evil. They are masses of an uncountable number of actual entities coordinated by natural laws inherited from their pasts, I suppose you could say, and they are simply playing out their destiny without conscious decision making. The role of God’s initial aims in such actual entities does puzzle me a little (or a lot). Does God’s creative role in such events as tornadoes and volcanoes involve God in ambiguity? (Every now and then I reread Bernard Loomer’s essay “The Size of God” and am fascinated by his discussion of possible ambiguity in the life of God, but I sure don’t know what to make of that yet.)
Anyway, back to natural phenonema that we call disasters. From their perspective, they are just going about their own creative business according to their inherited pasts and whatever modicum of novelty might be injected from God’s initial aims and from their own subjective immediacies, if I understand the working of concrescence properly. These phenonema have no conscious intention of causing or being evil. But from the perspective of human beings in the path of these phenonema, evil does occur in the form of violence (to use one of Suchocki’s terms) that results in destructive suffering. So though there was no evil intention or sin involved in those events, for a part of the world extreme evil is a consequence of the events.
On the other hand, conscious (or self-conscious?) acts of human beings (and perhaps some animals with central nervous systems, as you suggest) that result in destructive suffering or violence are certainly evil acts in and of themselves, as you say. It is those acts that I say are the result of sin.
As I listen to people discuss in my Sunday school class (which, by the way, includes a wide spectrum of theological viewpoints ranging from the rigidly ultra conservative to the quite liberal to an apostate like me), I find most of these Christians presuppose that all would be hunky-dory in the world if we could only get rid of sin. Get rid of sin and we would have heaven on earth, they seem to feel. I don’t buy that, and I think process thought leads logically to my conclusion. I don’t see how a world of finite entities, many with competing/conflicting agendas, can ever achieve peace, bliss, etc., even without sin. This could lead us into a discussion of salvation that is relevant to the most interesting presentation you offer in Chapter 18, but I have gone on too long already.
Thanks again for this opportunity to pick your brain and get your reactions. Lee

]]> By: Robert Brizee http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Robert Brizee Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:42 +0000 http://currentsoffaith.com/?p=46#comment-173 Dear Lee: My apology for my delay in responding. It has been a hectic summer and your words have caused me to deliberate. I hear your affirmation that natural disasters are evil, when they cause suffering, often immense suffering. I think that we may have a productive conversation from what you have said. I start with Whitehead's wonderous concept that all entities or actual occasions, are happenings which participate in shaping their own future. They may be electons, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, or humans. All are to be seen through the same lens. All are influenced by their own past, the immediately past world, any physical characteristics, and God's invitation. Yet they are vastly different in complexity. For humans the influences are one's body, one's past, the immediate world and God's invitation. For most of the world's entities the deepest influences are their own past and the immediate world, such that seldom do atoms or molecules transform dramatically in a manner that humans and many animals do. I think it is consciousness that is unique to humans and some animals with a central nervous system and it is this quality which allows me to see their decisions as intentional. In contrast most electrons are deeply influenced by the changes in the world about them and many animals are largely guided by instincts. I do not think that the magma flowing from the earth's entrails in a volcano or the electrons forming a swirling hurricane hold any notion of a decision or the consequences of their actions. They are utterly unaware of the suffering which they may create. Thus, I do not hold them responsible for an evil act. They had no notion about the purpose of their actions. Often, as you have noted, the various rates of evolution in our universe collide with great suffering. I would consider a conscious intentional decision with some degree of awareness of its consequences as potentially evil. Intentionally causing injury or death to another, ravaging a life supporting environment, depriving other humans or animals of their basic needs, or using brute force to fulfill one's wishes, all are evil acts. Perhaps, we have the beginning of a fruitful conversation. Thank you, Lee, for your thoughtful response. BOB Dear Lee:
My apology for my delay in responding. It has been a hectic summer and your words have caused me to deliberate. I hear your affirmation that natural disasters are evil, when they cause suffering, often immense suffering.
I think that we may have a productive conversation from what you have said. I start with Whitehead’s wonderous concept that all entities or actual occasions, are happenings which participate in shaping their own future. They may be electons, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, or humans. All are to be seen through the same lens. All are influenced by their own past, the immediately past world, any physical characteristics, and God’s invitation. Yet they are vastly different in complexity. For humans the influences are one’s body, one’s past, the immediate world and God’s invitation.
For most of the world’s entities the deepest influences are their own past and the immediate world, such that seldom do atoms or molecules transform dramatically in a manner that humans and many animals do.
I think it is consciousness that is unique to humans and some animals with a central nervous system and it is this quality which allows me to see their decisions as intentional. In contrast most electrons are deeply influenced by the changes in the world about them and many animals are largely guided by instincts. I do not think that the magma flowing from the earth’s entrails in a volcano or the electrons forming a swirling hurricane hold any notion of a decision or the consequences of their actions. They are utterly unaware of the suffering which they may create. Thus, I do not hold them responsible for an evil act. They had no notion about the purpose of their actions. Often, as you have noted, the various rates of evolution in our universe collide with great suffering.
I would consider a conscious intentional decision with some degree of awareness of its consequences as potentially evil. Intentionally causing injury or death to another, ravaging a life supporting environment, depriving other humans or animals of their basic needs, or using brute force to fulfill one’s wishes, all are evil acts.
Perhaps, we have the beginning of a fruitful conversation.
Thank you, Lee, for your thoughtful response. BOB

]]> By: Lee Crawford http://currentsoffaith.com/2008/06/13/living-in-process-v-13-evil-an-entrapping-web/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Lee Crawford Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:32:20 +0000 http://currentsoffaith.com/?p=46#comment-168 Dear Dr. Brizee, Thanks for another stimulating chapter. I agree with much of what you say and particularly agree with your admission that making us humans as co-creators with God (hopefully in the production of goodness and beauty) can be construed to imply we agree, to some extent at least, with a "salvation by works" as well as by grace position. I do have one important disagreement with you. To me, natural disasters, accidents, and genetic-determined events that cause suffering are evil. In my view, any event that causes undeserved, destructive suffering is evil. Some suffering, however, is ultimately constructive and therefore not evil. For instance, if a teenager becomes infatuated with another person but suffers heartbreak at the break up of the relationship, the suffering endured can help lead to emotional maturity in dealing with the cruelties of life without having a seriously destructive effect on the young person. But I cannot see how the suffering caused by a tornado (I live in tornado alley) has much of a redeeming purpose from the standpoint of human beings. It seems to me in the Whiteheadian scheme, different actual entities (or, rather, societies of actual entities) go about their becoming toward their satisfactions, and sometimes these satisfactions are in inevitable conflict with the satisfactions of other societies. So I would say that destructive conflict is built into our finite existence. I would agree with you that events leading to suffering caused by conscious decisions of human beings are evil too, but I would say this evil is caused by sin. Long ago, I heard or read that Tillich was accused of implying that evil is rooted in both sin and finitude. Though I'm only an amateur in theology, many years of brooding on this accusation has led me to agree with the double rooting of evil (whether Tillich was actually guilty of that or not). And process thought, which I now adhere to more or less, seems to confirm that conclusion. Of course, I realize this conclusion is in conflict with the biblical proclamation that creation is good, but just as you seem to disagree with the Pauline injunction that salvation is only by grace through faith, I disagree with the authors of Genesis on the question of the inherent goodness of creation. Best regards, Lee Dear Dr. Brizee,
Thanks for another stimulating chapter. I agree with much of what you say and particularly agree with your admission that making us humans as co-creators with God (hopefully in the production of goodness and beauty) can be construed to imply we agree, to some extent at least, with a “salvation by works” as well as by grace position.
I do have one important disagreement with you. To me, natural disasters, accidents, and genetic-determined events that cause suffering are evil. In my view, any event that causes undeserved, destructive suffering is evil. Some suffering, however, is ultimately constructive and therefore not evil. For instance, if a teenager becomes infatuated with another person but suffers heartbreak at the break up of the relationship, the suffering endured can help lead to emotional maturity in dealing with the cruelties of life without having a seriously destructive effect on the young person.
But I cannot see how the suffering caused by a tornado (I live in tornado alley) has much of a redeeming purpose from the standpoint of human beings. It seems to me in the Whiteheadian scheme, different actual entities (or, rather, societies of actual entities) go about their becoming toward their satisfactions, and sometimes these satisfactions are in inevitable conflict with the satisfactions of other societies. So I would say that destructive conflict is built into our finite existence.
I would agree with you that events leading to suffering caused by conscious decisions of human beings are evil too, but I would say this evil is caused by sin.
Long ago, I heard or read that Tillich was accused of implying that evil is rooted in both sin and finitude. Though I’m only an amateur in theology, many years of brooding on this accusation has led me to agree with the double rooting of evil (whether Tillich was actually guilty of that or not). And process thought, which I now adhere to more or less, seems to confirm that conclusion.
Of course, I realize this conclusion is in conflict with the biblical proclamation that creation is good, but just as you seem to disagree with the Pauline injunction that salvation is only by grace through faith,
I disagree with the authors of Genesis on the question of the inherent goodness of creation.

Best regards, Lee

]]>