A Thesis Submitted to Charles Sturt University For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Relational Power of God: Considering the Rebel Voice Revd. Eleanor Louise O’Donnell B.Th. (Hons), Grad. Dip. Ed. August 2020 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………… 6 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. 15 Chapter One: Reviewing the Literature of Power, Process, and Trinity……………………………………………………………………… 23 Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 23 1.1 The Social Wrong of God’s Omnipotence………………………………… 24 1.2 Ways Forward…………………………………………………………………………. 27 1.3 Power, God, and Creation………………………………………………………. 30 1.4 Power and Process Thought……………………………………………………. 36 1.5 Power and Trinitarian Theology………………………………………………. 44 1.6 Social Trinity in Process: Relational Power………………………………. 53 1.7 Divine and Human Power: Implications of a Relational God……. 54 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 58 Chapter Two: Power, God, and Creation……………………………………… 61 2.1 God and Power………………………………………………………………………. 62 Classical Theism………………………………………………………………… 62 Deism………………………………………………………………………………… 66 Beyond Deism……………………………………………………………………. 67 Panentheism……………………………………………………………………… 70 2.2 Human Relationships and Power……………………………………………. 71 Weber and power in social relationships…………………………… 71 Game Theory……………………………………………………………………. 77 Foucault and power as discipline………………………………………. 80 2.3 Theologies of Power………………………………………………………………. 83 Pasewark and power beyond domination…………………………. 83 Case-Winters and a critique of omnipotence…………………….. 87 Migliore and the different power of love…………………………… 90 Power and modern theism………………………………………………… 91 Panentheism vs. Pantheism………………………………………………. 95 2.4 Power and the God-World relation: reflections on Job…………… 97 2 Chapter Three: Power and Process Thought………………………………… 103 3.1 Process Thought……………………………………………………………………… 105 Alfred North Whitehead……………………………………………………. 106 Charles Hartshorne……………………………………………………………. 119 Key interpreters of Process Thinking and its overall import.. 130 3.2 Key issues for Process Thought……………………………………………….. 132 Incarnation and resurrection…………………………………………….. 133 Eschatological questions…………………………………………………… 139 Theodicy and God’s justice………………………………………………… 140 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 142 Chapter Four: Power and Trinitarian Theology……………………………. 144 4.1 The Development of Trinitarian Theology………………………………. 145 Early developments: the One and the Three……………………… 146 The developing language of Three in One…………………………. 152 Trinity East and West and the procession of the Spirit………. 160 4.2 Social Trinitarianism……………………………………………………………….. 164 Moltmann and the Social Trinity……………………………………….. 166 Moltmann on patriarchy and power………………………………….. 174 Moltmann and the Holy Spirit……………………………………………. 176 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 178 Chapter Five: Social Trinity in Process: Relational Power……………. 181 5.1 A Relational God…………………………………………………………………….. 182 God as non-coercive, persuasive, suffering love………………… 187 God as the companion we imitate…………………………………….. 191 God and the world…………………………………………………………….. 196 The primacy of the Spirit……………………………………………………. 198 5.2 Affirming the pro-Nicene Connection……………………………………… 203 One nature, three equal persons……………………………………….. 203 Eternal procession of the Son…………………………………………….. 206 The inseparable work of the three persons………………………… 211 5.3 Social Trinity in Process…………………………………………………………… 213 Sketching a relational model of God………………………………….. 213 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 216 Chapter Six: Divine and Human Power: Implications of a Relational God …………………………………………………. 218 6.1 Power……………………………………………………………………………………… 219 Taking stock: the movement from theism to panentheism…………………………………………………………………. 219 3 Power and theodicy…………………………………………………………… 225 A link between theism and atheism………………………………….. 231 Panentheism…………………………………………………………………….. 232 From the quantity to the quality of God’s power………………. 235 6.2 Imaging God……………………………………………………………………………. 237 Imaging God in the Church………………………………………………… 239 Imaging God in Models of Ministry…………………………………… 250 Imaging God in Pastoral Situations…………………………………… 260 6.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 263 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….. 269 4 Certificate of Authorship “I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged. I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Division of Library Services or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of theses.” Name: Eleanor Louise O’Donnell Date: 3 August 2020 5 Acknowledgements I am indebted to the Faculty of Arts Domestic Research Compact at Charles Sturt University for the provision of a fee-free place through which to undertake this research. I have benefitted from the generosity of spirit embodied by the faculty and staff at St Mark’s National Theological Centre. Whether I have been in residence or working at distance, the collegial interest shown in my project has been a source of inspiration. I acknowledge the wise advice of each of my doctoral supervisors, and especially Dr. Heather Thomson. Not only has she believed in this project from its inception, she has gently but surely supported me in bringing my research to fruition over a number of years. Finally, I must acknowledge the quiet, unswerving commitment of my husband, Dennis, who shared the journey that gave rise to this research project. Without his ongoing patience and encouragement this thesis could not have been completed. 6 Abstract In this thesis I join the chorus of voices that question the long held view that a key attribute of the God of the Christian faith is omnipotence. Omnipotence is characterised with omniscience and impassibility to describe God as all powerful, all knowing, and unable to suffer or change. This view is questionable on several grounds. It denies genuine freedom to creature and creation. It generates an intractable problem of theodicy, for a God who knows the future and brings about every event and circumstance according to divine will is responsible for evil. It portrays God as unable to suffer with us, which is at odds with the New Testament witness of the God who suffers in Christ for our salvation. Moreover, the omnipotence of God invests control of the other with the status of the divine. The changing contexts of the twentieth century have only served to highlight the problematic nature of an omnipotent God, on more than theological grounds. Theologians have learned from sociology to question the use of power for control and domination, responding with their own theologies whereby divine power has a different quality to omnipotence as traditionally understood. Contemporary science has given us insights into the interconnection and relatedness of all things, making the monarchical power of an omnipotent, impassible God all the more untenable. The model of God and power that is developed in this thesis is panentheism: a vision of the divine that is God in relationship. What is sought is a fully Christian understanding of God that makes sense for contemporary thinkers who live in a changing, evolving and suffering world. What is proposed is a synthesis of Process theology and Moltmann’s Social Trinitarian theology to provide the basis for a fully relational, panentheistic understanding of God. To model God as a Social Trinity in process will re-direct attention from the quantity of God’s power to the quality of God’s power. This change of focus provides a vision of the Triune God whose power of love is exercised through lure and invitation towards the good in each moment and circumstance rather than the means through which to impose a preordained divine plan. By giving freedom to creature and creation, and 7 leaving the future open, such a model offers a viable response to the problem of evil and suffering. A fully relational vision of God also calls for and encourages a change in the outworking of power in social relationships. It invites the view that human relationships are best modelled on the power-sharing solidarity of the Triune God; the God who in loving community feels each joy and sorrow, gently companioning all creation in non- coercive, persuasive, suffering love. 8 Introduction Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. William Shakespeare - Henry IV, Part II, Act III, Scene 1 The way in which the world looks sensible and final at any moment masks the vertiginous process of its continuous creation and destruction. Les Murray - The Quality of Sprawl I did not begin studying theology seriously until I was middle aged, according to the biblical lifespan of three score years and ten, but I began to think deeply about God when I had just turned twelve. On a Sydney January morning in 1977 my father caught his usual train from the Blue Mountains to the City but did not arrive at his intended destination. He died