Many of those reading these blogs will have heard of Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead’s most well-known student and chief propagator of Whitehead’s philosophy. Well, the confluence of the three of us came about on this wise. At a meeting of The Southern Society of Philosophy of Religion many years ago Professor Hartshorne and I both presented papers. In mine I sought to explain why I think that the term “pansyntheism” is more helpful than Hartshorne’s well-known term “panentheism” in explaining the intricacies of Whitehead’s theological perspective.
After I had delivered my paper Professor Hartshorne ran up to me in a very excited manner and exclaimed: “Pansyntheism is the right word. Why didn’t I think of that?” Thank you ever so much for pointing it out.” And off he ran to discuss the issues involved with some of his friends and students. Before going any further I should stop and explain the difference between these terms that Hartshorne had in mind. It get’s a little sticky but please bear with me.
In trying to explain Whitehead’s view of the relationship between God and the world, Hartshorne had used the Greek terms ‘pan’ for “all”, ‘theos’ for God, and the particle ‘en’ for “in”. The idea was that the term ‘panentheism’ best explains how God and the world are interrelated. God is neither identical nor completely separate from it. This term had become the standard way for philosophers to express this crucial idea in Whitehead’s “Process Philosophy” (cf. his Process and Reality), even though it was actually Hartshorne’s terminology.
In my paper I had suggested that the Greek term “en” unfortunately still suggests that somehow the world is entirely included in God. I went on to suggest that the particle ‘syn’, meaning “with”, as in “synthesis”, “symbiotic”, and “synthetic” would better fill the bill. This term focuses the idea of mutual interaction without entailing any suggestions of “inclusion.” Thus the relationship between God and the world is to be seen as a mutually “inter-relationship” of interaction.
Let me offer a translation of Paul’s familiar words of encouragement to the Christians at Rome in Romans 8:28 as a way to clarify my main point. In the traditional King James translation this verse reads: “And we know that all things work together for God to them that love God, to them that are called according to his purpose.” Fortunately, we now know that this translation is incorrect. The modern versions correct this mistranslation so as accurately to convey the real meaning of the Greek.
Focus on “God cooperates for good with those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” In the Greek the subject of the sentence is not “all things” but rather it is god who co-operates with all things bringing good to come about in the world. We human beings are, of course, part and parcel of these “all things” if we choose to work together with God to make good come about.
One final note. The Greek verb translated here to describe God’s activity is synergetei, literally “cooperates”. Thus, God is not presented as being in total control of, but as working with, the world, along with those who pitch in to help. My guess is that it is this insight, focused in the notion of symbiosis, that so animated Professor Hartshorne that day. The exchange of interactive energy seems to be the point. Moreover, he certainly embodied that interactive energy that day on which we met.
The coming together of the divine spirit with the ongoing activity of the cosmos in eternal creative formations is driven by a synergy that continually animates both realities. I submit that that the positive aspects of this process understanding of God’s relation to the world, especially human beings, are better served by substituting the term “syn” for “en”. I do think professors Whitehead and Hartshorne would have agreed.
8 responses to “WHITEHEAD, HARTSHORNE, AND ME”
Do these reflections on the relation between divinity and the cosmos parallel Merleau-Ponty’s work on the relation between the flesh and the world? For Merleau-Ponty, it’s not incidental that we are “in the world”; it’s constitutive of our identity: We are so deeply OF the world that flesh is what we ARE. So 1. we are neither “in” our bodies, nor are bodies simply “in” the world; and 2. there’s not “a reality” in which “the two” might be first understood as independent identities, and subsequently put together. Such robust threads of intimacy link them that each implies the other; to “get” one is to conjure the as well.
If that makes sense, AND is on track, it raises a speculation for me: Might we be confused to speak of divinity as having a nature and identity apart from (but in interaction with) the cosmos? I like that you emphasize a “synergy” rather than either of the (so to speak) synergized elements. The ability to distinguish them grammatically may bewitch us into weird metaphysics — taking either as being reifiable apart from the other. (I hope I may be permitted to describe common transcendent monotheism as ‘weird!)
Your words suggest the relation between the divine and the world is itself “driven by a synergy that animates both realities” (rather than driven by intentions on the side of the divine, or on the side of creatures). If it’s this synergy that coordinates and animates the relation between the divine and the cosmos, that (the synergy) seems to be where the deepest magic lies.
I’m not sure there’s a philosophical theology that addresses such a synergy (as opposed to the items it relates). But perhaps what can be said of it conceptually is the same as what can be conceptualized about the mystery whereby body and world are given together (= nothing)!
Absolutely, my man :O) I do think that the process philosophical theology speaks directly to this issue – David Ray Griffin’s work is an excellent example. These words and my thoughts now are co-extensive – they create and instantize (:O) each other. Thanks so much for your astute reading and thinking – as usual :O) Paz, Jerry
Yes, I think your word is better than Hartshorne’s, and I am glad to hear that he was so open and generous in his response to it. Still troublesome from a Christian point of view, though, is the sense that you get in both terms that God “only” cooperates “in” the matters of the cosmos, seeking to bring good out of them. I am left feeling a little insecure about the terrible things that can happen when God is only “chipping in”, so to speak. Christians look toward a consummation of all things, when evil is put utterly away and the reality that we live in is one in which God is “all in all”. The Christian lives in hope of salvation, and that salvation includes the way God ultimately deals with the evils of the cosmos. I know I might suffer now, as Paul so often points out; but my faithful hope looks toward an ultimate resolution to suffering that only the power of God can bring about. For Whitehead, though, God just keeps on “concrescing” into a more advanced form with the cosmos and seems always to bear a degree of impotence in finally bringing that ultimate good out as the nature of the physiotheic (term mine) universe.
Hey David – I have to disagree with you on this – I do not believe there is any guarantee that God and the Good will win. If God is ultimately in “control” then we and God are stuck with all the needless evil that takes place in the world. The problem of evil wins !! What we see in Jesus Christ is not a guarantee that good will win but a guarantee that God will fight evil forever. I choose to join into that fight. God needs us in that fight. Paz, jerry
It seems, though, Jerry that your solution is more that of Zoroastrianism than Christianity; and even Zoroastrians believed that the Good would eventually win out! I think that the image of the kingdom of God, which, in a realized eschatology, has already been initiated, is to be extended to the context Christians call the “consummation”. It simply means that eventually God is going to make a decision to rescue those whose faith engages them in a spirit-led moral and ethical mode of life that makes life in the kingdom possible, forming a border between that mode of life and the antagonisms of evil. This is not a natural development but a Divine act. It is what we mean ultimately by “salvation”. God is not being thought here as being in control of all things but as acting within the boundaries of Divine power to create an island of safety. Freedom is left intact in both the cosmos and in the kingdom.
Well – for me that still means that multi-millions of folks have been allowed to suffer terribly over thousands and thousands of years for nothing. Adjusting God’s ultimate power to fit the circumstances just means that God is not in full control. Whitehead and Hartshorne are right, God is not absolutely sovereign but is absolutely good. God waiting to make an “absolute decision” just prolongs millions of tons of human suffering. The struggle is real, not just postponed. Paz, jerry
One more word – if its not too late ;O) I do not think dualism is the only alternative to traditional Judeo-Christian monotheism. I see reality as open-ended with no plan or “person” in charge. God is a positive power for good but does not control events, etc. I line up with that power. We’ll see what happens :O) Paz, Jerry
Yes!! Pansyntheism!!! Perfect!!!!