Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CGU Theses & Dissertations CGU Student Scholarship 2012 The God-World Relationship Between Joseph Bracken, Philip Clayton, and the Open Theism Dong-Sik Park Claremont Graduate University Recommended Citation Park, Dong-Sik, "The God-World Relationship Between Joseph Bracken, Philip Clayton, and the Open Theism" (2012). CGU Theses & Dissertations. Paper 43. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/43 DOI: 10.5642/cguetd/43 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the CGU Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in CGU Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The God-World Relationship between Joseph Bracken, Philip Clayton, and the Open Theism Doctor of Philosophy Dong-Sik Park Claremont Graduate University Claremont, Los Angeles 2012 APPROVAL OF THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE We, the undersigned, certify that we have read, reviewed, and critiqued the dissertation of Dong-Sik Park and do hereby approve it as adequate in scope and quality for meriting the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Philip Clayton Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean Claremont School of Theology ________________________________ Anselm Min Maguire Distinguished Professor of Religion Claremont Graduate University ________________________________ Ingolf Dalferth Danforth Professor of Philosophy of Religion Claremont Graduate University Abstract of the Dissertation The God-World Relationship between Joseph Bracken, Philip Clayton, and the Open Theism by Dong-Sik Park Claremont Graduate University: 2012 This dissertation investigates the God-world relationship between Joseph Bracken as a process theologian, Philip Clayton as a panentheist, and the open theism. They have affinities and differences as conversational partners in their multilayered relations. Their common question must be as follows: “What does it mean to believe in God today?” In this dissertation I compare their respectively theological perspectives and explore their affinities and differences. Many scholars have already noted more affinities than untenable differences among Bracken’s theology, Clayton’s panentheism, and the open theism. On the one hand, even though theological perspectives of Bracken and Clayton are obviously different from each other, they are both influenced in specific ways by Whitehead. On the other hand, open theism is a movement that emphasizes “the openness of God,” from within evangelical theism. The fact that there is even within classical theism the pursuit of new models of God such as revised classical theism or modified classical theism might suggest the need for contemporary models of God in philosophical theology. This dissertation will thus explore philosophical theologies that are proper both to the biblical faith and intellectual earnestness, that is, 居敬窮Ó ( geo (to live) kyeong (piety) kung (to acknowledge) li (reason) ) in Eastern philosophy, which means distinctions but not separation between piety and intelligence, and that stand between classical theism and “orthodox” process theism. If there is no consistency among biblical, rational and existential descriptions of God, how can we establish philosophical theologies? Our theological task is to frame a new constructive theology whose primary aspect must synthesize both classical theism and process theology in the hermeneutical circle. For example, this new theism admits an infinitely qualitative difference between God and the world, as well as a really radical relation between God and the world. Aspects and domains do not encroach upon each other. Acknowledgements I am really grateful to my doctor father, Philip Clayton, who taught me especially panentheism and science and religion and who led me to a way of theology of integration, making a balance between liberal theology and conservative theology. I also thank two committee members, Anselm Min and Ingolf Dalferth. I give my thanks as well to ChulhoYoun who taught me philosophical theology in relational thought and who is a professor in Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary in Korea, to a Rev. SoonChang Lee who is my mentor and a senior pastor in Yonshin Church in Korea, and to Joohyang Church (Rev. Shin Kim) in Los Angeles and to Myungsung Church (Rev. Samwhan Kim) in Korea who supported my financial help needs. I really thank my wife, Ji-Young Oh. Without her sacrificial help, I could not make this work. I want to thank my beloved daughter and son, Eunyou and John. And without the prayer and support of family in Korea, I could not finish this study. Finally, thank to God. “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men!” v Preface What are the raisons d’etre of theology? It is natural that one lacks something in one’s life. In order to rectify such a lack, one may achieve a vicarious pleasure through anyone who does not have the same part lacking. For example, someone who does not sing a song well may achieve the ability to do so by listening to the song as it is sung by other singers. Someone who does not exercise well may achieve the ability to do so by watching the play as it is played by other sport players. Such examples can be countless. What, then, is the ultimate lack in human beings in general? It is neither money nor fame nor social position. If it were any of these, those who are rich, famous, or in high social positions should be happy and satisfied with their lives. However, we know that they are not. The ultimate human concern lies beyond such mundane phenomena; the ultimate problem for humans, the problem we cannot solve, is the problem of salvation, although some religions maintain the possibility of human salvation in humanity. To that extent, then, humans may suppose “God” in order to satisfy their lack. In that sense, Feuerbach’s thesis, “God is the projection of human consciousness,” must be a wonderful insight. Feuerbach deploys this thesis in the perspective of atheism, but, if we elaborately develop this argument, we can meet a confession of another tone, that is, it is God that is the highest word which we can confess in human language. The faith we have, “God exists,” finally supports that it is not a fiction. Thus to confess God in a seemingly atheistic time is a more brave and valuable confession than not to confess God. vi In this dissertation I use some methods such as systematic theology, comparative theology between different scholars, the authority of the Bible, and various examples of human life. 1 In order to solve the problem of God, I have chosen three figures: a modified process theologian (Joseph Bracken), a panentheist (Philip Clayton), and modified classical theists (Open theists). In Chapter I, I begin to explore the problem of God in many skeptical elements and attempt to find a possible alternative from philosophical theology. In Chapter II-Chapter VI, I investigate theological characteristics of the model of God advanced by Bracken, Clayton, and the Open theists in order to show the affinities and differences between them. In Chapter VII, I present and defend a philosophical theology which synthesizes classical theism and process theism, and which I will call Trinitarian Panentheistic Theology (TPT). Giving the Trinity the position as the first adjective form in Trinitarian Panentheistic Theology, panentheism in this dissertation is based on the Trinity itself. The Trinity and panentheism have common grounds, i.e., God’s transcendence and God’s immanence in the relation between God and the world. By bridging with divine action four categories from classical theism— Creatio ex Nihilo , Trinity, Transcendence, and Worship—and one category from process theology, Dipolar God, I will depend the model of TPT. Central features of exposition include: Kenotic God, Relational God, Suffering God, Knowable God, and Revised Power of God (the voluntarily self-limiting God). 1 As a matter of fact, many theologians have been ignoring each individual’s life story in theology because they consider the individual story not as God’s talk but just as trivial talk. However, we need to rethink this in that theology happens between my (human) story and God’s story; each individual story already contains its own theological implications. For the believer, that story becomes “the story of God’s self-revelation” and is, for the Christian, also “the story of God’s redemptive work in Christ.” Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 85, 94, and 137. vii Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Preface Chapter I: Methodology and Theory of Knowledge 1 Chapter II: Joseph Bracken’s Neo-Whiteheadian Perspective 33 Chapter III: Philip Clayton’s Panentheism 57 Chapter IV: Open Theism 91 Chapter V: Affinities and Differences between These Philosophical Theologies 118 Chapter VI: Constructive Theological Proposal toward a Trinitarian Panentheistic Theology 136 Chapter VII: A Model of Theism as a Synthesis of Classical Theism and Process Theism 163 1. From Classical Theology 164 1) Creatio ex Nihilo 169 2) Trinity 173 3) Transcendence and Immanence 191 4) Worship 204 2. Conceptual Resources from Process Theism: Dipolar God 208 3. Divine Action 215 4. TPT Model 251 1) Kenotic God 252 2) Relational God 256 3) Suffering God 266 4) Knowable God 291 5) Revised Understanding of the Power of God and the Knowledge of God A) The