Eternal objects are rigid, being invariant in all their appearances in the world, as well as in the becoming of actual entities. This rigidity within concrescence generates several difficulties, and so I propose that forms within concrescence, both divine and finite, be modifiable. Thus there can be a formation of form. Each eternal object then becomes completely determinate in a finite actualization, and remains so determinate throughout its worldly career.

This paper surveys some scientific issues in physical cosmology and concludes that no current model in cosmology adequately meets all key observations. Scholars in process thought are making important contributions in both metaphysics and philosophical cosmology, independent of the outcome of debates in physical cosmology. Such scholars are advised to be very cautious when using hypotheses currently arising from contemporary cosmology

The purpose of the paper is to explore the similarity between care ethics and process theology’s views of the world and God’s nature, especially as it relates to the process concepts of the consequent and superject natures of God. The ethic of care concept of the one who cares-for corresponds in interesting ways to process theology’s notion of the consequent and superject natures of God. The author hopes to encourage conversation between these two disciplines which appear to have such striking similarities.

Buddhists have a natural interest in, and affinity for, Whitehead’s philosophy. What they see there is quite distinctive. These essays express this distinctiveness.

We need to distinguish systematically what is culturally creative from the degenerative forces that now rule the world. Whitehead comes closest to defining the creative when he identifies it as freedom on the human side and peace on the divine. Buddhist meditation can go deeper to realize the zero-dimension of the communal life-as-such, which corresponds to Whiteheadean freedom-and-peace as the ultimate wellspring of cultural creativity.

Pure Land Buddhism ascribes to Amida some of the roles ascribed to God by Whitehead. The failure of Whiteheadians to clarify how God can play these roles also leaves doubtful the claim of Pure Land Buddhism. On the other hand, Whitehead’s emphasis on perpetual perishing reinforces the original Buddhist teaching of impermanence and together they provide the basic insight for authentic life.

Whitehead calls for an extrication of the concept of nature from models of the body/subject, which is always engaged in a process of “extensive abstraction” or simplification, issuing forth our conceptions of serial time and divisible space. The incorporation of serial time into process (thereby unifying the sciences with philosophy) is commonly held to be a key distinction between Whitehead and the more “dualistic” thought of Henri Bergson. This essay examines the affinities between the two thinkers, with particular reference to their common espousal of the primacy of process and a fragmentation of the Kantian unity of subjectivity.

Following the introduction of the special and general theories of relativity and development of consequent cosmological models, the extent to which time and space play a starkly abstract role in physics has become more and more apparent. We examine here whether the full force of such abstract characterizations comes ultimately into opposition with the practice of science and implies some hard limitations on the scope of scientific discourse.

There is a great similarity between process theology and Chinul’s Buddhist thought. They share the conception of a mutual immanence and interaction between the world and the ultimate reality. They also share the view that the true or sanctified self is an incarnation and expression of the ultimate reality in and for the world. However, Chinul’s Buddhist thought is weak in dealing with the aspect of redemption.

If, after a century of analysis there is a turn to synthesis, Hua-yan and Whitehead will become important resources. Especially given the radical difference of their historical contexts, their similarity is striking, but they differ on time. Whitehead is clear that relations to the future always differ in kind from those to the past, and Theravada Buddhists agree. But Hua-yan is open to a greater symmetry in enlightened experience.

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.

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.

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.

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.