David R. Griffin’s new Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy: An Argument for Its Contemporary Relevance (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007) contains a chapterlong Whiteheadian response to several criticisms I have leveled against process theology. While encouraging his attempt to promote Whitehead as a preferred alternative to foundationalist modernism and postmodernism, I undertake to rebut Griffin’s arguments through discussions of the following topics: the one and the many (which Whitehead does not treat adequately), the finite versus infinite character of God, creation ex nihilo, the nature of determinateness and the need for every determinate thing to have a creator, the applicability of the Ontological Principle to explaining a complex of first principles, the inclusion of time within ontological eternity, the goodness versus wildness of God, the nature of religious experience, and the uses of religious language.

Using the lenses of both biblical and process theology, this essay explores the ways in which sacrament and church are inextricably bound with one another. By paying special attention to the seriousness with which Whiteheadian thought takes events in space and time, the essay develops a sacramentally focused ecclesiology that is radically embodied in the realm of occasions.

Though it is frequently pointed out that Whitehead’s process philosophy is a hermeneutic philosophy, the author makes the additional claims that the philosophical hermenutics of the 19th and 20th centuries are frequently process philosophies. This is especially true of Paul Ricoeur’s interpretation theory, whichdescribes the ego as engaged in an unending transformative dialectic process with its environment. This insight, coupled with Ricoeur’s insistence on the efficacy of a pre-linguistic reality upon experience, makes him a provocative conversation partner for Whiteheadians and uncovers the possibility of a process metaphysic arising out of the “subjectivist” programs of phenomenology and linguistic analysis.

This paper attempts to reinterpret the idea of minjung messiah, a major doctrine of Korean minjung theology, in order to reveal its nondualistic understanding of Christian eschatology, by using process non-substantialist metaphysics. In a dialogue with process panentheism, minjung theology gets philosophical languages to articulate its organic ideas of the relationships between historical liberation and eschatological salvation, minjung’s self-transcendence and divine providence, and history and the Kingdom of God.

A number of years ago we argued that Hartshorne’s psychicalism and his doctrine of divine memory are incompatible with contemporary big bang cosmology. Theodore Walker has responded to our objection by arguing that our understanding of psychicalism is flawed and that Hartshorne’s metaphysics has the resources for accommodating what the big bang theory says about the origin and fate of the universe. In the present article we attempt to show that Walker’s defense of Hartshorne fails.

The absence of clear definitions for both “evangelical” and “process” theology opens the way for dialogue. The dialogue can be expanded beyond past dialogues and previous types of relationship. Two essays in this section propose creative conceptualities of God’s relationship to the world that seek to overcome limited evangelical and process understandings by drawing upon resources within each tradition. The other two essays suggest adding voices to the discussion that have not been heard clearly previously.

Although their doctrinal propositions differ significantly, process theology and evangelical theology may find common cause by considering convergences of method. These possibilities are currently limited by underlying assumptions about authority and openness to novelty that characterize the opposing camps. The methodology of Karl Barth holds out the promise of reinvigorating evangelical theology through an appreciation of his willingness to consider novel conclusions that spring from familiar premises. Likewise, process theology should emulate Barth’s passion for the historical doctrines of the Christian faith and the rich resources of scripture. In lieu of the divisions created by the categories of authority and obedience, process and evangelical thinkers alike can reorient themselves toward shared sources in terms of fidelity and loyalty, and therein find common ground.

Adding additional positions to the discussion between process and evangelical theologians may stimulate developments within each tradition. Postmodern philosophy relates to both evangelicals and process thinkers while differing with each of them. Comparing the thought of a representative from each group brings recognition of the agreement that absolute knowledge is not available to humans but significant differences arise about what is known about God. Comparison also shows a common identification of newness or novelty with God. However, disagreement arises about the nature of divine agency. Process theologians are challenged to draw upon the resources of process theology to show more clearly how God’s influence, as pervasive and continuing, supports hope. Evangelical theologians are challenged to relate divine and human action more consistently. Both evangelical and process theologians are encouraged to recognize the limitation of their own conceptual structures.

Like process theism, Christian theology affirms the immanence of God in the world and of the world in God. Unlike process theism, it also affirms the ontological priority of God over the world. As a result, Christian theologians will object to describing God’s relation to the world by analogy with the mind’s relation to the body or in terms of whole-part relations. In Christian history, the God-world relation has been more often described in terms of “participation.” The world is said to participate in God, keeping in mind that this language is highly metaphorical. The idea of participation is a development of themes enunciated by Plato and Aristotle, but adapted by Christian theologians to trinitarian ends. The created world participates in God by reflecting the trinitarian life of identity and difference. This establishes an organic and internal relation between God and the world.

Open theism represents an important mediating position between more traditional or evangelical theology and process thought. But open theists have in general failed to engage panentheism. The increasingly significant role of panentheism not only in process thought but now across the theological spectrum—including among evangelical thinkers—suggests a new mediating position, open panentheism. Its panentheistic themes allow this new constructive theology to draw more deeply from process sources than most open theists do. At the same time, along with more traditional theologies, it affirms a free creation by God ex nihilo, and hence the free self-limitation (kenosis) of God in the creative act.