What Is Process Theology?SeminarsLectionary CommentaryQuestions And Answers About Process TheologySermonsContact Information

Making God Talk Make Sense

This page provides responses to common questions about religion and its impact in the world today, process theology, and spirituality. If you would like to submit a question or comment, please do so - e-mail us at questions@process-theology.org. For more in-depth information, you may be interested in Making God Talk Make Sense, click here for details.

Q: What is the position of Process Theology on abortion and euthanasia?

A: There is no stated position on either in Process Theology but total freedom on the part of those guided by "process" to reach their own conclusions. My personal position on abortion is that greater emphasis should be placed on the prevention of conception where it is not desired and beyond that it should be a matter of choice by the mother with whatever consideration for the father as seems appropriate. My position on euthanasia is that it should also be a matter of choice by the one who is dying and loved ones, well thought out prior to the need for immediate consideration. It is not unusual for us to treat our pets better at the end of life than we treat ourselves or our loved ones. The difference has to do with legality, emotion, and religious belief. Movement toward a humanitarian "life ending" for human beings surely fits well within the philosophical perspective of "process".

Q: Are there two sets of laws, those of nature and those of God? Perhaps a better way to ask is: are the laws of nature part of God's laws?

A: The laws of nature ought to be considered part of the laws of God. Does it make sense that a CREATOR would create a "nature" with laws either different from, or in conflict with other laws of God? This answer points to creation as a process, not complete, and therefore indicates that our understanding of God's laws is also a process, not complete.

Q: You say (in Chapter XVII (of Making God-Talk Make Sense) we ought to trust God that all will be okay for us after death. That doesn't help one grow spiritually does it?

A: It helps much if one considers this life a gift of highest value! It doesn't help if one considers this life only a painful/frustrating/testing preparation to determine worthiness of "eternal life" in the future. Total trust in God for the future removes the need for the "carrot" of heaven as a reason to grow spiritually in this life. Spirituality (love, forgiveness, hope, etc.--not just symbols of spirituality such as praying, attending church, and flaunting our righteousness) in the "here and now" brings its own reward. Furthermore it undergirds a trust in God for the future thus removing the "fear" of death. Trust in God forces one to work hard at getting the most from the wonderful opportunities we have (in this present life) now, rather than hoping to "earn" something better in the future.

Q: How does eternal life fit into your theory of living in partnership with God in the now? Doesn't death usher us into God's Kingdom for more understanding and union with God?

A: Maybe! Perhaps not! Once we are free from the bondage of "ancient" and "pagan" religious ideas, we are then free to view life as a partnership with God and it is o.k. to "trust" God for the meaning of death as well as the fact of the future. If death ushers us into God's Kingfom for more understanding and union with God, that is o.k. Jesus seems to have believed that the "kingdom of God" was in the "here and now" as well as in the future. Trusting God makes questions about "after death" mute, except for interesting conversation. Faith that we can and are living in partnership with God now accepts the fact of death without the need to know what come after. Whatever comes after death we can trust that God "know best", but let's not insult God by showing a lack of appreciation for the life given to us now.

Q: It seems that you are almost disrespectful or scornful of the ideas with which you disagree, I get angry as I read the first parts of each chapter, then when you "wrap things up" at the end, I usually feel better and often feel validity in what you've said. Have you written your book this way purposefully, or am I missing or adding something?

A: Congratulations to you and to me! I have written the book in an effort to provide possible answers to important questions related to life and religion that are harmonious with what we are learning through the compounding of knowledge across the centuries. I do not believe contradictions have a legitimate place in a theology that is harmonious with the knowledge of our time. Biblical theology was harmonious with the general knowledge at the time Jesus lived--and before, but has severe limitations today. A system of religious Beliefs ought to be harmonious with contemporary knowledge. I believe we have a right to be disappointed (disappointment may be evidenced in a number of ways.) when religious institutions encourage us to believe things that "fly in the face" of contemporary knowledge. In my opinion, this fact is made worse when the institution holds over the heads of those who trust it, the "threatening stick" of hell, and/or cajole it with the carrot (reward) of heaven. Little wonder that many religious institutions are filled with contradictions of "good" and "evil". Oh, I'm really a nice guy! Don't be alarmed that my book challenges basic assumptions which you have embraced through many years and you find your first response one of "defense" rather than examination and inquiry. This has to do with human nature. There is a vast difference between static religious teachings, and life/theology as a process.

Q: On pages 192-3 in Making God-Talk Make sense, you say "The death of Jesus was tragic and unnecessary." I have a real problem with this. Wasn't he fulfilling the prophecy of the Old Testament? How could he have been Jesus Christ without fulfilling those prophecies as he himself said this was the purpose for which God sent him?

A: I suggest you re-read chapters V and VII. What we are taught to believe is not often harmonious with fact, either contemporarily or historically. Jesus may or may not have believed himself to be the fulfilling of prophecy as you suggest. He may have saw a tremendous need and determined to do everything he could to make a positive response to the need. The Bible provides one response of the early church as to what should be believed about Jesus. Its accuracy at this point is questionable and there was considerable disagreement about Jesus both before and after his death. Isn't the idea of God needing a human sacrifice quite repulsive and out of tune with the idea of a God whose love for human children is unconditional?

Q: Do you believe that all people who pray in the traditional manner (that of praise and petition) are buttering God up to get what they want? Couldn't their praise be sincere and genuine?

A: Of course one can be sincere and words can be a genuine expression of the heart. Sincerity does not equate with accuracy. Genuine expressions of the heart do not equate to complete or accurate knowledge. This is not necessarily a "fault" of the "pray-er" but is more likely to be evidence of inadequate teaching. I respond to the fact of unanswered prayer, not that God says "no", but that God does not respond to "buttering up" and that there is a better understanding of, and approach to effective prayer. Re-read chapter XVIII for a more complete treatment of this question.

Q: What do you think happens when you have offered prayers in front of your congregation?

A: I hope the congregation has been inspired to give thought to commons concerns and to assume responsibility for becoming part or all of the answer to the concerns of the prayer. Thirty-five years in the same local church causes me to believe that I was modestly successful.

Q: It seems that you see everything in black or white. Comments please.

A: I have also been accused of seeing everything in gray! An adequate response to this question actually requires specifics in the question. I believe the great interest in fundamentalist Christianity is a response to "black" or "white" and that the definitions given to these colors is often unloving and inaccurate. I have a personal history in fundamentalist religion and have grown to believe there is a better way. The leverage of fundamentalist theology creates a defense of the "old time religion" regardless of how foolish it is presented. As human beings, it is necessary to "get our attention" before a willingness to give serious thought "sets in". I do attempt to get the attention of the listener or reader before I present what I believe to be a "better way". You may not agree with all or any of what I have to say, but I have at least been successful in "getting your attention".

Q: I don't believe you give people enough credit for having common sense. We aren't as backward as you seem to indicate--you sound defensive at times. Are these observations correct?

A: I doubt it! I have great confidence in human intelligence and desire to "move forward". I am distressed that theological thought has been greatly impeded by the very institution that ought to be encouraging theological growth. Your accusation sounds to me as though it comes from anger brought about by a challenge to beliefs that are important to you. Don't be angry. Just think and consider such thinking a good exercise which nudges growth. The result may be that you adjust your beliefs to some degree, or you may be more solidified in what you have believed for many years. In either case, your faith is therefore likely to be strengthened and if so, the purpose of the book is fulfilled for you. I prefer to think of myself as being on the offense (offensive) rather than on defense (defensive). If you believe in theological growth, as I do, buy several books and give them to your friends--or provide them for your congregation!

Q: Do you believe that some people are born evil? That in some cases, even with conscientious parents, the child still is guilty of doing horrendous acts, apparently having no conscience.

A: I don't KNOW, so I'll just indicate what I think. I doubt that anyone who is born whole and healthy is born evil. I do believe that the fetal environment (which extends to the attitudes, emotions, and environment of the mother.) impacts the baby along with the genetic pool. This means that we are born as a blank slate with capacity to become good or evil or a strange combination of both. It is possible for parents to be conscientious and still "fall short". In our kind of world, many influences come to bear on developing children that have nothing to do with parenting. I am concerned that families and societies unintentionally create their own criminals. If there is any truth in this concern, that truth is suggesting a need for adjusting our system of justice. As is true with every other "part" of being human, a conscience needs to develop and such development requires education.

Q: Recognizing that as a society, we could do more with remedial help for those making bad choices (preferably before those choices were mad), what do we do about those who seemingly cannot be helped?

A: Work hard at prevention which may require a re-prioritizing of values. Protect ourselves (society) from those whose expressions of evil threaten the well-being of others. Become more dedicated to the proposition of protecting society and rehabilitation of the individual than in "getting even", i.e. punishment.

Q: In the general approach of your book MAKING GOD-TALK MAKE SENSE how do you differentiate the meaning of "theology" and "philosophy"?

A: Theology is more specific in that it centers on a belief system related to "God" and the human-God relationship. Philosophy is used in the more general sense of "a philosophy of life", i.e. the nature and purpose of human life. Theology ought to spring from and contribute to a functional understanding and expression of life. A philosophical understanding of life does not necessarily include theology, i.e. a belief in God. It is my contention that most Christian Theology is not harmonious with contemporary understanding of "how/why" things are as they are, and is thus in major need of up-dating. The problem of course is that the canonization of the Bible effectively enclosed Christianity in a theological environment which is very difficult to expand or in which to experience relevent growth. This doesn't mean that values do not come from traditional Christian theology. It does mean that the task of nurturing a theology relevent to the world of contemporary understanding is made very difficult. Unless persons find a way to move beyond traditional biblical enclosures, it is impossible.

Q: In your book you often use the term "evolvement" rather than the term "evolution". Is there a reason for this?

A: Evolvement speaks of a general on-going process which applies to most areas of human experience. The term "evolution" tends to become translated as "Darwins theory", or an anti-religious meaning related to creation which leaves God out of the process. Strange, isn't it, that it is so difficult for us to accept the possibility that God creates by a process of evolution that functionally for human understanding, is endless. The tellers (writers) of the biblical creation stories used the best "science" of their day to explain creation. We should do the same. I am hopeful that the term "evolvement" will nurture more thought than might occur for many if the term "evolution" were used. In brief, I am hopeful that "evolvement" will communicate more effectively than "evolution".

Q: Would there have been a church started if Jesus hadn't died and rose from the dead in such a dramatic way?

A: The short answer is "no". The longer conjecturing answer follows. Two things are important to remember in responding to this question. First, it should be remembered that any biblical story generally accepted as historical, including the "Jesus story", is a reflection of what certain people BELIEVED to have happened, rather than an accurate reflection of what really happened. This is true for both the Old and New Bible Testaments. Second, it should be remembered that contemporary to the Jesus story were Greek and Roman religions which had a "leader" who, it was believed, performed miracles, died and rose from the dead. The essence of the Jesus story was not, therefore, unusual in that day at that location in the world. This fact made it easier for Jesus, in hindsight, to have been noticed and furthermore it established his credibility as "The Son of God". The embracing of this story as historical consequently placed early Christianity in competition with other contemporary religions, most notably the "Mystery Religions". The eventual combination of secular political power (Popes and Emperors) resulted in the rapid and powerful expansion of the "Christian Story". The strength of the "love and hope" aspect of Christian theology is the key to the survival and growth of Christianity through the centuries.

Q: If Jesus had lived a normal life span can we suppose that there would be many more teachings from which to learn, or without the drama of the cross and resurrection, would it be more likely that a religion would not have come from his teachings?

A: It is doubtful that a new religion would have taken root without a leader who could equal or exceed the miraculous exploits of leaders of competing religions. The teachings of Jesus were powerful and practical, however, and it is likely he would have received acclaim as a great teacher or prophet instead of coming to be known as "The Son of God". The important thing for us to remember is that the message of "love and hope" is extremely important to the "human condition" and that each of us can strive to express our lives as we perceive this "perfect" human being to have lived his. It is also important for us to accept the virtues of honesty and growth, and permit our theological beliefs to be harmonious with what we are learning about the wonder life and universe-environment God has given us. Our challenge is to apply, what we understand to have been, the spirit of Jesus to life as we experience it within the realm of contemporary world understanding and events. I'm sure had Jesus lived longer there would have been additional "teachings" but none could have "trumped" the idea of a loving God who gives and sustains human life.

Q: Does the church in general fail to support people in becoming all that they are capable of becoming?

A: The answer is "yes" in relation to any way the church discourages persons from "thinking" within the framework of CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE rather than within the framework of knowledge at its point of development hundreds or thousands of years ago (during the time of scriptural development and at times when the church commands absolute control of biblical interpretation). For a more complete answer I refer you to Goff's book, MAKING GOD TALK MAKE SENSE in its entirety.

Back to top

Q: Does the United Methodist Church continue to discriminate against gay people and why?

A: Certainly it does in relation to clergy. The recent ruling of the Judicial Council (1032) concerning gay persons in relation to lesbians as clergy and gay men as members of the UMC appears to indicate discrimination by the highest court in the denomination. Discrimination against gay people within the church is typically rooted in three areas: (1) perceived behavior of gays; (2) church politics--it is difficult to get votes if your positions are not popular; and (3) slowness to accept growing evidence that persons are gay as a result of genetics rather than choice. It does seem that the "banner" of the UMC is a bit misleading when it defines the church as having "open hearts, minds, and doors". The NT appears to indicate Jesus as being judgmental regarding behavior but absolutely accepting (loving) of persons willing to improve their behavior.

Back to top

Q: If we are working to be comfortable in the belief system of our lives, are we doing all that we can to reach our potential?

A: Continual searching for "truth", and "honesty" are key concepts here. It is the nature of the church to dictate the meaning of "truth" while at the same time it often encourages dishonesty in relation to "belief" rather than honesty. "Comfort" may bring pleasure but is necessarily the highest goal in life.

Back to top

Q: Does the contradictory statement: "I am always happy with where I am in my life, but I am never happy with where I am in my life." apply here?

A: I wonder if it might be better to say: "I always strive for happiness where I am in my life, but I am never satisfied to remain where I am in life."

Back to top

Q: What are the most important religions in the world today and why?

A: Islam because of its rapid growth, numbers, and in its extreme form, contribution to terrorism and clash with western culture.
Christianity because of its numbers, evangelical spirit, and general concern and goodness in the world.
Judaism because of its close association with Western Christianity
Eastern religions because of their vast numbers and impact on such a huge block of world population.

Back to top

Q: What are the roots of the idea of "original sin"? Is it a concept being taught today? If so, by what denominations?

A: If one wishes a scripture reference Psalm 51 (David's prayer of repentance) with special attention to verse 5. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." The general interpretation is that human beings inherited a "sinful heart" as a result of Adam and Eve's "fall" and are thus born "sinners". This is also a general reference to a perception of the sinful nature of the human sexuality. The broad outcome of such a state is that all human beings "do" sin because they are born as sinners. The concept is basic to Christian ideas of "the new birth", conversion, baptism (especially infant baptism) etc. Since this idea of original sin is so basic to Christianity one can generalize that it is taught in some manner by all denominations, especially those which adhere most closely to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Back to top

Q: Is "original sin" peculiar to Christianity or is it a part of other religions as well? If so, what do they teach?

A: As such it is especially peculiar to Christianity, HOWEVER it should be remembered that most religions utilize various techniques for mind and behavioral control. Christianity has traditionally done this with the idea of sin and punishment unless forgiven. The favor of forgiveness is brought about by compliance etc. Christianity incorporates the idea of "grace" by forgiveness being made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus as a manifestation of God's great love for his/her sinful children.

Back to top

Q: What is the importance of the "pure", "clean", "precious" blood of Jesus?

A: None. The idea of God requiring a sacrifice for purposes of reconciliation was o.k. for the primitive mind, i.e. prior to and during the time of Judeo-Christian development of scripture. The idea of "blood sacrifice" has no place in contemporary theological thought, although many in the Christian tradition are fearful of moving beyond that kind of thinking. Paul had the right idea in his letter to the Romans (12:1,2) when he exhorted them to let their bodies be a living sacrifice and be transformed in spirit so that the expression of their lives was foremost and always an expression of "love". This, he said, is acceptable to God. We need to understand that in our tradition, much of what was attributed to God was not necessarily true to the reality of God, but was instead what certain persons thought about God at that point in their spiritual journey. The idea of animal/human/Jesus sacrifice was consistent with their understanding of life and the world then. It is not today. We would like to think that after this long on "the journey" many of our insights are more harmonious with "truth" now than was true then. The journey of learning, however, is never ending--that means there is a long ways to go!

Back to top

Q: In Process Theology is prayer directed more to ourselves than to a transcendent God? If so, is there a place for us to feel that "I cannot do this by myself, I give it up to God" or is asking for help not a part of prayer?

A: First, in Process though, God is only transcendent in terms of our understanding, i.e. the greatness of God in everyway is beyong human ability to understanding fully, BUT we can always be in the process of learning more. God is in us as well as beyond us! This belief does not minimize prayer but changes our understanding of it. Prayer becomes a technique through which we seek to become a better "partner" with God. God's response to our needs does not typically come in a "miraculous" manner but through means that may seem quite natural. Human beings have long prayed for "long life". Generally, our society experiences longer life today not through miraculous means but through knowledge gained concerning health/longevity, which, when applied results in greater longevity. During the 50's and 60's for example, many were crippled and some died from polio. Knowledge was gained regarding immunization against polio and we have no need to fear the disease as once we did. God was at work, but in a manner different from what religion tends to teach. Process thought thus tends to increase our view of what is holy and decrease our view of what is secular. When we pray for help, typically help is available through the expertise, energy and concern of other human beings. This is a more realistic way of understanding how God works. Such a view is capable of greatly increasing one's appreciation for life and for God. Prayer should thus not be a matter of not doing something for ourselves but "giving it up to God". Instead, prayer should increase our efforts to do for ourselves while at the same time seeking all the help in all the ways possible to enable others to help us, or help to help us help ourselves. Utilizing the gifts brought to us through technology and medical science, for example is one way of permitting God to help us through none miraculous ways. Miracles are simply episodes for which we do not have a natural explanation. This does not mean there is no natural explanation--it just means we don't know what it is--yet.

Back to top

Q: Is God just energy or is there shape to him?

A: No one knows. I am guessing that the "energy idea" fits better than "shape". This is a mystery we learn to "live with". It is highly unlikely that human beings will ever find a reliable answer to this question. We are each free to formulate our own thoughts based largely on how we perceive the energy of God to be expressed.

Back to top

Q: Does God really learn as "He" goes along? Does "He" make mistakes?

A: The answer to the previous question applies here as well. It can be said that God makes adjustments in some ways based on the response of human beings. Many such adjustments are in response to human error and inadequacy. Among the adjustments of God is change brought about by human learning.

Back to top

Q: Is the Holy Spirit God?

A: The idea of the Holy Spirit is an expression describing the "presence in" and "empowerment of" human beings by God. It was used by the early church and was included in the idea of the "Trinity" as an effort to describe God as understood through Creator (creation), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit (God's presence within/among us). A short answer to your question would be "yes".

Back to top

Q: Where does Satan come into play in Process thought?

A: "Satan" is a name used by the ancients (and some moderns) to personify the source of evil. Process thought is more comfortable without such personification. "Good" and/or "evil" comes about through human expressions and should not be attributed to an "outside force".

Back to top

Q: Explain what "radical evil" is and is Jesus the answer to overcoming it?

A: "Radical" is sometimes used in relation to evil in an effort to describe the "root" of evil or "extreme" evil. It is a way of thinking of evil on the basis of some level of "evilness" or "degrees of evil". Radical evil could be thought of as either the source of evil or the degree of evil. The major teachings of Jesus through word and deed, as we understand them, are a basis of doing away with evil. This should not be confused with the "person" of Jesus. There is no magic in the person of Jesus either historically or contemporarily. The teaching of Jesus can reduce or eliminate evil to the extent that they impact the life expression of human beings. For example, if everyone expressed their lives in perfect reverence for God and perfect love for each other, what we typically think of as "evil" would not exist.

Back to top

Q: Is "process thought" applicable to all faith traditions?

A: Certainly it is to most if not all. In every case, however, belief adjustments are required in relation to the nature and work of God and the authority of "Holy Scriptures".

Back to top

Q: Describe the impact of "faith" on personal and corporate human life.

A: In brief, faith inspires, empowers, and nurtures appreciation and hope. Faith is a positive building block for the future of human life.

Back to top

Q: If education is one of God's great gifts, why are there so many people in the world who do not have access to it?

A: Education, like many other of God's gifts (life, food, love, health, abilities, etc.) must be nurtured and shared by human beings. Much of what God does is dependent upon human response. Think about it!

Back to top

Q: Is God manipulative or persuasive?

A: It is clear that God is persuasive and not always successful in that endeavor. All human beings do not have access to education. The experience of progress is dependent on that belief. If God were manipulative much freedom and creativity would not belong to human nature.

Back to top

Q: Could one aspect of a "process" definition of prayer be "prayer changes me, and helps me to flow"?

A: This is not a complete definition but indicates a good understanding of one of the virtues of prayer. It is certainly more realistic than the idea that we "get things" by asking God for them.

Back to top

Q: Thinking of the biblical statement comparing the value of faith, hope and love and concluding that "love" is the greatest, what is the relation of each of these to the others?

A: Without "love", there would be little basis for "faith" or experience of "hope". Faith and hope are a partial expression and result of "love".

Back to top

Q: Please say more about investing greater energy into nurturing faith than on understanding God. What do you mean?

A: I mean that a full understanding of God is beyond the reach of the human mind. The nurturing of faith is very much within human "reach". Increasing realistic faith is of greater value to human beings than a complete understanding of God. There is value in growth in "understanding". There is power and value in nurturing growth in faith.

Back to top

Q: What about those whose faith is in a negative?

A: Faith can result in negative as well as positive power. In contemplating the need and possibility of "harvesting" a faith that nurtures positive energy, rather than negative, one must keep two important things in mind. The "process" approach is one which emphasizes the idea of partnership with God. The goal is therefore to be better "Jr. partners". The idea of a healthy religion incorporates Reverence, Respect (for creation), Love (for God and humans), and Personal Responsibility in the way we express our lives. These elements as basic assumptions suggests "positive" rather than "negative" faith. When faith functions in the negative its nurtures that which destroys reverence, respect, love and responsible living. Unfortunately much religion functions on a negative level. If you have trouble with this last statement ask your "friendly psychiatrist" some questions regarding a major common source of mental illness, emotional imbalance and serious psychological problems in general. If all approaches to religion were healthy and positive the work load designed to treat persons with such afflictions would be much less.

Back to top

Q: How can there be belief in things that are never verified?

A: If this is a "backdoor question" related to believing in God, the answer is the same as believing in "love". God is verified primarily by Creation--continuous creation, not in a lab or by "sightings". Love is verified by its "work" (expression), not in the lab or by "sightings". Faith in healthy and positive love pays major dividends. Because we know this we don't argue about the existence of "love". We just know it exists because its reality is evident in so many ways. The same is true with a belief in God, which also pays big dividends when ones relationship with our Source is thought of in terms of partnership and working together to bring about wonderful and desirable goals.

Back to top

Q: Is it better to have faith in something rather than nothing?

A: Yes, if the faith is on the positive level rather than negative. No, if the faith in on a negative level. It is for this reason that religious faith should assist with appreciation for the positive as well as enable us to bring positive results from negatives. Much "conservative" religion is designed to "save" from "hell" or the "wrath of God" and thus doesn't know how to make the positive aspects of life more appreciated and wonderful. This is a contributing factor in many in an affluent society professing to be '"non-religious" but "spiritual".

Back to top

Q: What do you think of the idea that everything happens for a reason?

A: Taken at face value this idea tends to assume that God is in control of everything and thus negatives are often explained as a "backdoor method" used by God to bring about "good". The idea that God controls everything is a very weak argument--at least it must be said that God is screwing lots of things up badly, if the theory is true. On the other hand, if we are designed to be in partnership with God it is easy to see who is screwing things up. Our task in life then become one of enlarging our data base to that we are increasingly aware of what ought to "be" and work hard to bring it about. Functionally it is better to think in terms of making some good come from every episode rather than supposing that God makes everything happen for a reason. God didn't make Jesus die on the cross! Jesus was willing to die in order to stand by his belief system which centered on a positive God and a positive life directed by love for and among human beings. He thus made some good come from a negative and horrible experience. Our challenges typically aren't that great. Thinking of Jesus as "a cover for our sins" can lead to irresponsible living. Tapping into the same Source which empowered and inspired Jesus and seeking to grow in his example of spirit can be a wonderful thing for us and for the world.

Back to top

Q: Is it possible that we will learn so much that the idea of God will no longer be necessary?

A: Only if we refuse to grow in our belief system. The opposite can and should abe true. The more we learn about the wondrous ways in which God works the greater our appreciation for God ought to be. Think of "infinity" in this regard as you think of it in regard to time or space. No end to the possibilities! This is another reason why "religion" needs to make major progress quickly. Knowledge is compounding. A relevant belief system needs to "keep up".

Back to top

Q: What is the point of prayer if there is no pay-off in terms of a direct response by God?

A: We need to quit thinking of God as the "Great Santa Claus in the Sky". If we think of "partnership" rather than "servitude" or "dutiful children", it is much easier to accomplish much on a positive level and to feel good about what we accomplish. We know that we can do nothing apart from our gifts from God, but we also know that many great things cannot be accomplished by God without our involvement. Prayer may have a multitude of definitions and "shades of meaning" for diverse people with a variety of needs and "gifts". Whatever prayer is to a given individual, it should function to nurture the God-human relationship and nurture a positive and effective expression of life for the individual.

Back to top

Q: Might "faith" become a common ground bringing peoples of the world together?

A: That is a possible and desirable goal. Many difference symbols which communicate meaning in different religions need not be forsaken. Some need reinterpretation. Keep in mind these ideas: One God for one human family; Partnership rather than servitude; Reverence; Respect; Love; and Responsible Living. Each of these ideas and all of them together permit mutual respect among religions and the living together of a family composed of many different religious "personalities".

Back to top

Q: Is capitalism compatible with healthy religion?

A: Of course! But only when each avoids extremism and remains a means to a more valuable goal rather than becoming the "goal" itself.

Back to top

Q: What is the difference in the belief Abram had for God (Genesis 15) and the belief Mary had in God (Luke 1:26) in the sense of believing God, believing something about God and believing in God?

A: There is great similarity because they both had the need for security in the midst of insecure circumstances. Abram had left his home and his people and was looking for a good place "under the sun". Mary was part of a depressed people who had received many promises but continued in bondage and thus looks for security and freedom. Their experience in life and past religious teaching nudged them in their belief in God. Their positive faith caused them to believe that God could and might be helpful. Acting on what they believed encouraged them to believe God was promising certain things and the combination of faith and behavior brought about great results in both situations. Faith was the glue that held the belief system together for each of them.

Back to top

Q: How do I show love to God?

A: By working hard at loving all human beings; By participating in meaningful symols indicating devotion to our Source; By responding to our environment (i.e. creation) with respect and care; by treating "love" as a verb as well as a emotion.

Back to top

Q: How do we "listen" to God?

A: Through the experience of other human beings, past and present (including scriptures); Through quiet meditation (prayer); Through observing/learning about God's creative work, past and present; and through the creative processes of our own mind. Listening for the voice of God requires intelligent discernment lest one mistake other voices for that of God. Always measure the "voice" against love as a verb.

Back to top

Q: What kinds of "idolatry" have we fallen into?

A: All things and anything which gains priority over Reverence for God, unseen and undefinable; Respect for God's creation; Love for one another; and a sense of Personal Responsibility.

Back to top

Q: Do we really need the "virgin birth"?

A: No. Every birth is miraculous. God is as much involved in every birth as in the birth of Jesus and no more involved in the birth of Jesus than in every other birth.

Back to top

Q: Do you think Jesus would be embarrassed that he has been given a god-like status by the church?

A: Yes. It was the early church that elevated Jesus to a "God" status and the church through the centuries has perpetuated and demanded a belief in such. This action by the early church was consistent with other religious beliefs of that period. It is a "stretch" to defend such a belief today unless all persons are accorded the same possibility as that which Jesus had. Jesus is done greater justice by assuming the secure sense which he came to have w/God can be experienced by others and that the mission which he accepted for his life was to share that fact with others, without prejudice, through love and teaching.

Back to top

Q: Do you agree that human beings need to have an object(s) of devotion?

A: Yes. This devotion is experienced/expressed symbolically, through loving behavior and a sense of partnership. It is important that devotion to that which is symbolized not be confused with devotion to the symbol (idolatry).

Back to top

Q: What would you say about the nature of God?

A: Our "definition" and understanding of God needs to be expanding without end. It appears that our minds, at least at this point in our evolvement, are not capable of a complete understanding of the nature of our Source. At the present time we do well to expand our understanding of God through increasing knowledge about the creative work of God and search for additional ways we can view and experience ourselves as loving partners with a loving God whom we cannot "see" or fully comprehend. This idea views the creative work of God as a "process"; our understanding of God as a "process"; and permits the idea that God may also be in process. This theory is harmonious with what we are learning about the universe and the potential of the compounding explosion of knowledge.

Back to top

Q: As per the last paragraph on page 157 of MAKING GOD TALK MAKE SENSE, why do you use the Bible to back up a statement when many other times you approach the Bible as somewhat flawed?

A: A flaw of fundamentalism is that the Bible is typically viewed as without flaw with a response that one must either accept it all as "God's word", or consider it totally without merit. The same persons who choose to view it thus typically overlook the fact that even they do not accept it in total as God's word. Most do not accept slavery as "o.k.", yet it is in the Bible. Many do not subscribe to the idea of wives being in subjection to their husband, yet this is taught in the New Testament. The Bible is one of two resources available to us concerning who Jesus was and what he did. There is no other written source. The second source is the impact his life/teachings have had on history and the impact they continue to have in the world today. Whether or not the story of his conversation in the synagogue is accurate history is a matter of conjecture--it is as good as we have. Even if one chooses to say this story is not historically accurate, the impact of the life and death of Jesus on history cannot be denied. This fact alone begs the need to decide whether Jesus was "sent" or whether he simply made the best use of his genetic "gifts" and environmental "opportunities" with the obvious positive results in social and religion evolution (the process of social and religious growth).

Back to top

Q: Might concern for the environment as a religious responsibility, also imply the need to "move" slowly in determining whether or not global warming is happening and if so whether it is a "good thing" or a "bad" thing?

A: The wonderful gift of the earth as a "home" for the human family should be viewed as a "gift from God" and respected as such. It is true that we are obligated to care for it to the best of our ability while at the same time we make the best use of its resources. We are in the process of learning how best to do this and because this learning is a process, human beings are not always in agreement as to how it should be done. Beyond this philosophical approach I certainly would not pose as an expert on details of how best to do it. Having come from an agricultural background, I am aware of much progress that has been made in the matter of conservation, tilling techniques, etc.and thus might cite that as just one of many examples that we are aware of the need and are trying, even if we learn by trial and error as we "try". In a capitalists society we must always weigh the "pressures" of what is "right" against the "pressures" of economic expediency.

Back to top

Q: You imply that there are social dangers in religious fundamentalism. Please cite some examples.

A:

  1. Extremism as exemplified in expressions of terrorism;
  2. Prophecy and its fulfillment as a means of inciting fear and thus acquiring and utilizing power over the minds and behavior of others;
  3. The whole idea that "God" is in control of history, the Second Coming of Jesus, etc.;
  4. The inherent arrogance of traditional Christian Theology that there is only one right way and Christians have it;
  5. Slowness to adjust and change in the face of a fast changing world;
  6. The embracing of ancient ideas of truth on the basis of "faith" rather than upgrading our ideas with the utilization of reason and an exploding data base of knowledge thus rejecting the idea that the human mind is a precious gift from God while we insist on "using it" in areas of life where certain essentials for survival are obvious;

Continue the list from your own perception and you will be impressed that change is needed in Christianity and other major religions.

Back to top

Q: I could be wrong, but it seems as though you Q&A Section didn't quote a single chapter and verse of God's Word. Why is that? Doesn't that reduce what you are stating to just another opinion. Why don't you use the absolute truth of the Word of God to back up your claims?

A: Although I haven't checked the accuracy of your comment regarding my "answering" with a Chapter/Verse of God's Word, I believe you are accurate. Before I give my response I wish to state four things. First, I am sympathetic to your "position" because that is "where" I used to be in my own thinking--quoting as many as 50 verses in a single sermon believing sincerely that such quotes provided absolute authority to the truth of the sermon. Second, because I believe that "faith" (confidence, trust, hope, a positive attitude) is essential to a healthy life, (spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and now experience/research is affirming--even physically) it is not my wish to destroy any basis important to your faith. Third, only embrace any part of what I offer as you truly come to believe that it is a defensible substitute for any given aspect of the present basis for your faith. If you need to reject everything I teach in order to maintain a positive faith--do that--but you will be missing out on a lot of meaningful religious experience without even knowing you are missing out on anything. Fourth, if you have even a bit of honest curiosity with the hope of moving on beyond where you now are in your faith/thinking, you should read MAKING GOD-TALK MAKE SENSE arguing with it as you study. I make this fourth suggestion because the book details what I cannot take space to write in this response to your question. (I only take time to respond to your comment because I sense a degree of honest inquiry in it.)

The basic assumption of fundamentalist Christianity is and has been that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that everything in it is "God's Word", and that God has said everything in it that God ever needed or chose to say to human beings. The Church has impressed the "truth" of this assumption regarding the Bible on us with promises (heaven, blessings) and threats (hell, lack of God's approval, failure in life). These promises and threats have been thrust upon us from a very early age. That is a pretty heavy "stick" and rejection of this approach to "truth" is very difficult because of the fear factor. Wasn't it Jesus who is reported to have said that "...you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." Free from what? Free from the bondage of fear brought about by "law" instead of "want to" i.e. "love". Even those who profess to believe in the Bible as fundamentalist Christians do not live fully on the basis of that belief. If they did they would be snake handlers (Acts) and they would not use medical science in any way for their physical/mental ailments (James) as just two examples. Research of HOW the Bible came into being is as important as studying WHAT is in the Bible. Critical research supports the idea that even the "coming together" of literature which is now called the Bible as a process. Not only this but such research supports the idea that much in the Bible is an indication of what people thought in terms of world view, God, human beings, and the God-human relationship at a given time. In other words, much in the Bible is what authors or peoples thought, not necessarily what God is, thought, or did. This is not to say we cannot and should not learn much from the Bible. It is to say that "process" is clearly evident within the Bible and once we come to a point in our thinking where we can view the Bible as part of a larger "process" a whole new "world" of thought is opened to us. A world of thought to which there is no end and which keeps our religious beliefs up to date with what we truly belief and beliefs on which our lives are truly based. In other words, such an approach permits honesty in the relationship of what we think we believe and what we actually believe. Recognizing that there is "good" and "bad' science, the idea of research, experimentation, and learning about God from what we learn about what God is in the process of creating, becomes another source of knowledge concerning God and how God works in relation to human beings and all of creation.

My quick response to your comment regarding "opinion" is that opinions can and should change with knowledge. "Absolute" provides an opinion which kills the freedom to grow. Of course what I write is my opinion (and that of many others I might add some of whom have not yet voiced the truth of their innermost thoughts.) and that opinion will change in some ways as long as my mind is healthy and I am alert and eager to growth in my understanding of truth.

Back to top

Q: If we love our enemies, (as Jesus was quoted to have said) and that is seen as weakness, what should we do?

A: I am assuming that the question implies "weakness" as perceived by the enemy. The point Jesus was making is that "tit for tat", and violence are self perpetuating and our energy can be used in a better way. Lincoln had it right when he suggested destroying the enemy by making a friend of the enemy. Functionally I suspect Jesus was encouraging his listeners to respond to perceived enemies without violence. Diplomacy, tolerance, and self-protection seem to be good goals. Although we cannot control the response of an "enemy" we can control our response to the enemy. If we respond in loving ways short of violence it is the hope is that the attitude of the "enemy" will change.

Back to top

Q: What does Messiah mean? When did the "powers that be" decide that Jesus was the Messiah?

A: The term implies "Savior". The Jews had historically experienced "salvation" from an enemy by a spiritual or secular leader. King David was viewed in this dual role. Their national history of the Jews became such a story of oppression, defeat, and exile that they hoped for a new leader similar to what King David had been. Jesus sought to be a spiritual leader rather than secular or military. The Jewish "powers that be" never really decided that Jesus was "Messiah". Some Jews believed him to be but official Judaism did not. The followers (a combination of Jews and Gentiles) of Jesus came to be called "Christian" and although a different term was used in describing Jesus, he became in their eyes what the Messiah was hoped to be by the Jews for the Jews. The nature of Jesus was a subject of disagreement in the early church and for Christians "the powers that be" did come into play as Jesus was affirmed by a variety of Councils to be "Savior" and "Son of God". It is important to note that Jesus did not spend much of his time "touting" himself as such, and there is reason to believe that in the Gospels where it seems that he is doing this, the "quotes" were later additions by the Church rather than an actual proclamation of Jesus about himself. It can therefore be said that in official Christianity, viewing Jesus as "Savior" was a political decision based on the understanding and experience of many disciples--but in the midst of disagreement that sometimes was quite strong.

Back to top

Q: How do we attain serenity in a fast paced, sometimes chaotic world? How do we help or encourage others to find serenity?

A: Let "the goal" be perfection but understand that perfection can never be attained for a number of reasons. Measure levels of "success" on a daily basis. Be forgiving of both self and others as you note failure. Have faith that this is a reasonable expectation of oneself. Your example will encourage others who seek the same goal. If/when questions are asked concerning "how", share your simple formula briefly and without advising or pronouncing judgment.

Back to top

Q: Regarding the "worthy goal" spoken of on page 134 of MAKING GOD TALK MAKE SENSE, are we not on a favorable pathway both for ourselves and others, when using these ideas as a guide?

A: Yes. We should not expect the impossible of ourselves but we should expect progress.

Back to top

Q: Please comment on the idea that no matter how long or short our life, our "inbox" will never be empty--there will always be things to do. Do we need to recognize that each word, attitude, and action has a consequence on an individuals life and the lives of others?

A: The words, attitudes, and actions of each person have a positive or negative impact on others and thus each individual is important to others throughout life. It is true that the "inbox" is never empty. It is also true that the contents of the "inbox" change with different stages of life. We should not be attempting to deal with contents of a "mid-life" inbox when we are in our later years. We should not assume the box is empty because we are in our later years.

Back to top

Q: What is the basis of motivation when an individual puts their own life at risk in an effort to save the life of another?

A: I suspect there are several possible answers to this difficult question. There is evidence of an "inner" connection between mothers and offspring. There is also evidence of an inner connection between human beings in general. Some basis may therefore come from instinct and/or genetics. Some may come from training. Jesus seems to have believed in this principle when he taught "love" and then is reported to have indicated that no greater love is shown than when one person lays down their life for the sake of another. Martyrs by training or fear evidently have what they perceive to be a greater good in mind when they give their lives. Jesus and Steven are two biblical examples. Palestinian "suicide" bombers are a contemporary example. The motivation for giving up one's life for another may or may not have a healthy motive.

Back to top

Q: Isn't there a bit of naivety in your assertion on page 136 of MAKING GOD TALK MAKE SENSE that lack of personal discipline is to blame for addiction?

A: Idealism perhaps but not naivety. Persons are typically not forced to experience a first time for an addiction. Typically it is a matter of personal choice. Weakness may be involved. Fear may be involved. Ignorance may be involved. Whatever the basis of motivation for "the first time", we are fortunate to live at a time where rehabilitation is possible for most if not all persons afflicted with addictions. Personal discipline is required, however, in relation to "first times" as well as successful rehabilitation. Without healthy personal choices addiction is often the result. In a society which tends toward an attitude of "give me what I feel like I want and give it to me now" the high incidence of addition is not surprising.

Back to top

Q: Is there a way to reword the statement "our first responsibility is our personal salvation, our second is to take care of our family.." so that it is more compatible with Process Theology?

A: I'm sure there is but rather than suggest different words I prefer to respond to the impact of parenting on family. Generations involve process. Words and example from one generation to another have great impact. The most positive impact is made when words are supported by example. The meaning of "salvation" should be understood to involve serenity with self and God, and priority-working at understanding "love" to be a verb which expresses attitude and behavior. Now ask the question. If every child had the advantage of "perfect" parenting, how different would the world and individual lives be?

Back to top

Q: How do you define spirit? Can it be defined? Is spirit different than soul?

A: Impossible to satisfactorily define! Probably best to think of "spirit" in relation to specific human beings as that which is not "body" or "mind" but which affects activity in both. Sometimes "spirit" is thought of as that which differentiates human beings from other "animals", yet it is becoming increasingly clear that many animals have "spirit" also. It should also be noted that there is a corporate "spirit" as in the spirit of an athletic team making a difference in victory or defeat. Traditionally speaking the terms "spirit" and "soul" can be used interchangeably in relation to immortality.

Back to top

Q: Is there a difference between Holy Spirit and spirit?

A: "Holy Spirit" is used in reference to God, as in the Christian Trinitarian view of God. Remove "holy" and place "spirit" in lower case, and it typically refers to other than God, i.e. human beings.

Back to top

Q: Are all human beings innately capable of accepting responsibility?

A: All HEALTHY human beings are innately capable of accepting responsibility. Certain kinds of health problems can make the acceptance of responsibility impossible for specific persons.

Back to top

Q: Why does an identical environment produce both good and bad people?

A: I prefer to think of good and bad behavior rather than good and bad people. In healthy human beings, behavior is related to freedom to choose, and knowledge. Some persons "catch" on to things different from others. In certain areas some persons "catch on" quickly and others "just don't get it". Some persons have personal deficiencies in need of correction. Some persons just make different choices. Although several ingredients go into the making of "good" and "bad" behavior, the power of choice is the "trump" ingredient. That power, among other things, is what nurtures us to be individuals in a constant state of "becoming".

Back to top

Q: Would you say more about what you mean regarding ...the extent to which we, as a society, contribute to the creation of our own criminals...and...perpetuating the conditions that nurture the evolvement of criminal mentality. Bottom of page 114, MAKING GOD -TALK MAKE SENSE.

A: My response is admittedly an over-symplication of a very important subject. If one assumes that a healthy infant is born with potential to be "good" or "bad" then there is great need to discover ingredients that go into the making of a person that is "good", "bad" or a mixture of both. What part does genetics play? What part does environment play? What part of does the freedom to make personal choices play? Perhaps some are born with a genetic disposition toward "bad" behavior". If so, then we need to work at discovering how such a genetic "leaning" can be corrected. Perhaps no infants are born with such a genetic disposition but are nudged by their environment toward "bad" behavior. If so, then there is need to adjust the environment in a manner which diminishes the nudge toward "bad" behavior. If "bad" behavior results from the former should the person be held accountable for his/her actions? Inasmuch as personal choice appears to be involved in "bad" behavior should that be the determining factor? We are unclear on the genetic aspect of behavior. On the other hand, we are very clear on the power of environment to nudge persons toward "good" or "bad" behavior. The ingredients of experience and learning are extremely important. Should personal judgment always be considered to be responsible for behavior? The point I make is that environment probably plays a major role in the nudging persons toward bad behavior and we having a growing awareness of aspects of environment which make "bad" behavior more likely. Finally I am suggesting that our "justice system" typically appears to be geared more toward punishment than toward rehabilitation. If there is strong evidence that punishment corrects the problem then that is justifiable. One has to wonder if the same amount of energy and treasure was involved in "cleaning up the societal environment" as is expended for punishment of the criminal,if crime might be greatly diminished. Because behavior is related to closely to inter-personal relationships theology should inform us of ways for improvement. Check home, entertainment, societal mores, business ethics, and journalistic judgment as points for beginning research.

Back to top

Q: Can the forgiveness be complete if the one who is being forgiven doesn't recognize his/her offense? Or if that person is dead?

A: For the person providing forgiveness the answer is "yes". For the person who doesn't recognize his/her offense, or who is dead, forgiveness is not needed or required because of lack of awareness. Forgiveness often provides its gifts for both the "forgiver" and the one "forgiven", and its value for each may not always be the same. Forgiveness, however, always provides value for the "forgiver" and can be complete even if onesides.

Back to top

Q: How would you counsel an adult person who is repeatedly being verbally abused, by a family member? Is avoidance a reasonable response, with the attitude that I can't do anything about this so I'll forget it?

A: After reasonable steps have been taken unsuccessfully to terminate the abuse, one then needs to protect one's own health and happiness. This may mean avoidance and/or separation from communication. Inner acceptance may be possible for some but does nothing good for the abuser. Furthermore "forgetting it" probably drives resentment deeper. Taking conservative measures first, separation may eventually be the only thing which terminates the abuse. Assuming mental health, verbal abuse is not a necessity and therefore should not be tolerated.

Back to top

Q: With regard to Jesus' advice "Turn the other cheek", a Seeker said, "Yes, and they'll eat your lunch!" Comment.

A: Sometimes we need to consider the general point Jesus was probably attempting to make. There is no end to fighting if blow is exchanged for blow until one side is no longer capable of hitting. I have to assume that Jesus was addressing the futility of most fighting and suggesting that one is better off to take two blows with the hope of negotiating, than to exchange blows. I doubt he was talking about denying ourselves reasonable self defense. He did not defend himself for a reason. Typically we don't have that same reason.

Back to top

Q: It seems as though people in general are more angry today than 20-30 years ago. We have now terms like "road rage", and "anger management" that may indicate this being the case. Comment.

A: Have you heard of what happens when too many rats are confined in too small an area? They begin to destroy one another! Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from this regarding population growth. Take a drive in the sandhills of NE visiting rancher and you will discover a wonderful amount of friendliness. God has given us the ability to learn how to control our population. We may need to utilize that ability more wisely. Also, bad manner can be "catching". Perhaps greater emphasis needs to be placed on personal discipline and courteous manners. In addition, we are each strong in some areas and weak in others. We have also learned that we need to help one another utilizing our strengths and receiving help for our weaknesses from the strengths of others.

Back to top

Q: As a pastor, how have you counseled people who would like to forgive (both for their own sake and the other) but the transgression is now such a part of their life or a loved one's life and affects every thought, word, and action.

A: Because this state of mind diminishes happiness, health, energy and hope, I counsel them to seek therapy from persons professionally trained to help persons learn how to leave the past--in the past.

Back to top

Q: Does our litigious society encourage lack of forgiveness? If so, how can we fix it?

A: Unfortunately money plays a major role in making our society litigious. Much litigation could be replaced by mediation. I don't have an answer on "fixing it". I'm sure a continuous societal emphasis on treating others as we want them to treat us would go a long way toward a "fix".

Back to top

Q: How do you define sin?

A: Broad answer--Anything that does not harmonize and/or is supportive of the following: Reverence (for our Source); Respect (For God's Creation including our environment); Love (For self and others); Personal Responsibility (for personal attitude and behavior).

More specifically--The Bible is a great source of information on "sin" in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It indicates conclusions/assumptions regarding "sin" at various points in the history of a specific "people" and in their culture at that time. The Ten Commandments is a good example. The summarization of the "Ten" by Jesus is another good example. The letters of Paul in the New Testament includes "wisdom" concerning his conclusions regarding "sin". A specific definition of sin should be regarded as "in process" (evolving) in relation to problems that arise in regard to the "Broad Answer" above. Evolution of the meaning of "sin" is evident in the biblical process. This is a process in which we should continually be participating both individually and socially.

Back to top

Q: Is "man" pre-wired with a belief in God, a Higher Being?

A: Just as "man" is inclined in certain ways by nature of "his" "being", it can be said that human beings are inclined for a connection with their Source. The fact that "religion" is and has been a universal aspect of human experience suggests that this is true. The search continues and will never be fully satisfied concerning the nature of God, how God works, and how we, as part of God's creation, can best relate to God as our Source and Sustainer.

Back to top

Q: When did God happen?

A: At the present time, and perhaps forever, this is an unanswerable question. It is similar to the question concerning whether or not God is capable of making a rock so big he can't lift it! Perhaps God is also in process of "becoming" in a similar sense that human beings are in process of "becoming". It can be said with some clarity that our perception of God ought to be in process of becoming, which from a functional perspective, amounts to the same thing as God being in process of "becoming".

Back to top

Q: Does Process Theology remove the personal aspect of the God-human relationship?

A: Not if the goal is to view Jesus as a human being who nurtured the same kind of relationship with God that is possible for every spiritually healthy human being. This, however, is much difference from viewing Jesus as "savior" because as "the only begotten Son of God" he became a sacrifice to satisfy God in relation to the human "sin problem".

Back to top

Q: Some say "I want a God who listens to my prayers and guides my thoughts, words, and actions." Is this possible under the umbrella of process theology?

A: This is very similar to the spirit of a child in relation to a parent in whom the child has perfect trust. The goal of life physically, intellectually and emotionally is to "process" from childhood to maturity. This is also a reasonable goal spiritually. Spiritual maturity is increasingly evident as we grow in a sense of partnership with God in relation to our capability as human beings, and trust in God in relation to those aspects of life beyond human control. (death for example) What we "want" is not always what is most healthy. What we "want" is not always consistent with the potential for which we were created. Spiritual maturity should be the goal of every healthy religion for its adherents. The satisfaction of this "want" is only possible in imagination for any theological approach and is sometimes the door which opens to fanatical extremism.

Back to top

Q: Is there a second book by Goff in the works?

A: Not at this time. Perhaps in the future if continued dialogue indicates a need to cover theological subject matter from a "process" perspective not included in MAKING GOD-TALK MAKE SENSE.

Back to top

Q: With regard to your beliefs and the church hierarchy, some believe that you come off as an Agnostic. Comment?

A: If the term "agnostic" is used as a "swear word" to describe my belief system, by those who are attempting to defend the faith of "the ole time religion", I suggest that greater faith is required to be honest and acknowledge falling far short in understanding the nature of God and the work of God, than is required to accept views originating thousands of years ago by persons viewing the world much differently than most view it today. It is possible, for example, for one to be dogmatic about a belief in specifics about heaven, when in reality none of us know anything about it. Great faith is required to face the future after physical death with no fear and great hope on the basis of what one learns (minimal as it is) about God and the work of God in this life. In the latter sense, I am agnostic. "Process Theology" acknowledges "becoming" and thus "change" as a reality in life and in the methodology of God's work--perhaps even in the nature of God. Greater faith is required to be a "process theologian" than to defend the Bible as the unchangeable word of God! "Process Theology" is visionary and dynamic. Basing a belief system solely in the past is "blind" and static. For these reasons, and others, I confess to be a hopeful agnostic.

Back to top

Q: Is There a difference between Process Theology and Process Philosophy?

A: Process Theology deals specifically with God-human and human-human relationships in the realm of spirituality. Process Philosophy is a philosophy which can be applied to politics, social development, economics, science, international issues, etc. as well as to the theological arena.

Back to top

Q: What is the difference between religion and spirituality?

A: Though difficult to define, there is that in the human creature that is spiritual. That which is spiritual is part of the "whole" and without which human beings would not be human. Spirituality has to do with nurturing the human spirit, individually and collectively. Religion is typically used in reference to a discipline or set of disciplines designed to assist in nurturing spirituality. The term "religion" may also be used in reference to organized efforts to nurture spirituality with specific kinds of emphases. Spirituality in human beings is universal. There are many "religions".

Back to top

Q: How can it not be believed that Jesus was resurrected physically, given all the "proofs" indicated in the New Testament, for example that 500 witnesses saw him? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the whole basis for Christianity, without it Christianity is only a shell.

A: First, it should be noted that there are not 500 testimonials by persons having met Jesus in the flesh after his death. It did, however, make an impressive story by those who told it. It also made "young" Christianity more competitive with the "Mystery Religions". Second, it should be noted that while a belief in the resurrection became a central theme in Christianity, Christianity is not a "shell" without it. The physical resurrection had/has nothing to do with the primary teachings of Jesus. Check the sermon on the mount! The world has been changed by Christianity--a matter of historical record. Change has not occurred because Jesus reappears in the flesh here and there to initiate change. It has occurred as a result of the same spirit which informed, inspired, and empowered Jesus being at work in many who work at nurturing the expression of their lives as Jesus did. This is evidence of a spiritual resurrection--not a physical resurrection.

Back to top

Q: Are those who embrace a "process" approach to Christian theology at the mercy of fundamentalists who have the money and power within the church?

A: Not at all! Many who have money and power have never been "given permission" to be honest about what they believe and what they don't. It is as wrong for those who embrace a "process theology" to pressure fundamentalists toward dishonesty in what they believe as it is for them to pressure those who believe different from them, to embrace their beliefs. Human understanding of the world has changed in a relatively short time. Christianity has survived over centuries without the need to make major change in its belief system. Communication, transportation, technology and a compounding of knowledge is in a process of changing that. Persons who embrace "process thought" also have access to the power of money and all that it "buys". Patience is required but the "process" is at work. Christianity and other similar religions must change and adjust or they will become increasingly irrelevant. I prefer to see Christianity "adjust" rather than die. Lacking as we are in knowing "all truth", those of us who have grasped the idea of "process" should with great humility, "take heart" and be grateful as we work at "spreading the word". We can all be thankful that human civilization has progressed beyond the need to "crucify" those who point out a different way of thinking religiously, due in large part to the teachings of religious leaders, including Jesus, concerning love, respect and personal responsibility.

Back to top

Q: What about other "books" written during the same general period as the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas? How would the Bible be different if that and other "scriptures" had been included?

A: The Bible would contained some additional "words of wisdom" as well as some additional "unbelievable stories". It is unlikely that the general impact would have been much different. The power of the biblical message is in the truth it contains, as demonstrated through history and human experience, not through the magic or superstition which may be found in it.

Back to top

Q: How do you answer the question, "Where is God"?

A: A complete answer to this question is impossible, given limited human knowledge. It suffices to say that God in some manner is available to each of us--within and without. Perhaps God is everyplace!

Back to top

Q: In Chapter IX of MAKING GOD-TALK MAKE SENSE you say that Christianity is less successful providing a theology for affluent societies which are on the growing edge of a knowledge explosion, because it is less experienced in this environment. You were successful at ministering to a church congregation for thirty five years that could be considered affluent, how did you do that?

A: I didn't need to give priority to a message of "there are better days ahead--especially if you get your act together and obey the commandments".The majority of my ministry was directed to positive considerations providing an expanding window in which to explore what Partnership with God" means. There is no limit to exploring how to be more effective "partners". The availability of the latest current events (couples with knowledge of history of course) in terms of world experience and knowledge explosion provides limitless and relevant challenges to growing as a partner with God. The idea of partnership with God puts everything we do in a "religious light". Vocation, recreation, efforts to nurture personal growth, family relationships--all of these and more become part of religious (spiritual) growth and experience. That part of our world and experience which is "spiritual" (religious) therefore becomes much larger as that which is specifically secular diminishes in both quantity and importance.

Back to top

Q: With regard to "Morality Among Youth", what can be done to guide young people (or anyone) when there are so many ways society seems to say, "If you can get away with it, it's okay. There are so many examples of poor moral choices made by popular sports figures, movie stars, politicians, and others wo are held up as someone to emulate?

A: Because "youth" are the future and each generation builds on that which is contributed by each previous generation, the implications of "answers" to this question are gigantic. Some thoughts that come to mind include responsible growth in the following areas: Parenting; Professional Teachers; Business ethics; Societal Value Priorities; Entertainment; Spiritual Nurture; and understanding better that natural consequences really do come to human beings, individually and collectively. For every seed sown there is a harvest and we don't have wait for a future judgment day out beyond the clouds to experience it.

Back to top

Q: How does one make those "course corrections" you mention on page 105?

A: By translating what we learn about improvement into attitude and action --a challenge which none of us will achieve perfectly. The value of entering into discussion with ourselves and others about matters different from what we have assumed, especially in religion, is not found just in the changing of our mind. It is challenging to change our beliefs. It is even more challenging to change our attitude and behavior on the basis of "course corrections" in what we believe. As we learn about both positive and negative consequences associated with attitudes and behavior, we then work at doing what is necessary to minimize negative consequences and nurture positive consequences. Inasmuch as these things (changing our beliefs) do not happen all at once, change in attitude and behavior is typically a slow process. That is the reason we often think of "old age" as a time of wisdom--i.e. a time when we have lots of good ideas that we can no longer do much about and most other folks aren't interested in. (A bit of levity should be read into that last statement.)

Back to top

Q: Are there many "Vernon Goff's" preaching process in the world?

A: Most, if not all theologies, are an outgrowth of the combination of human experience and general world view (how things are). In Christianity, with the development of scripture and the canonization of the Bible it became difficult for "process" to be at work because of (church) political power used in the imposition of limitations. The evolution of theology within the church therefore became primarily a matter of interpreting scripture in relation to life events rather than nudging the evolution of theology to harmonize with human experience and a developing world view. There also developed a three-way power tension involving "the pew", "the pulpit" and "state". Inasmuch as "the pew" provides economic security for "the pulpit" and there is fear that the "state" and church might exert too much influence on each other, theological evolution has been limited/ Real rhetorical effort is therefore required to theologically harmonize the explosion of knowledge, and the changing human experience, with a belief system that makes sense. Toss into that mix the fact that some clergy are aggressive leaders while others are coordinators of public opinion and progress is impeded even more. These are just some of the reasons why "process" is not the leading theological approach when it seems that common sense is demanding that it be so. There are more ministers who "believe in" process than there are those who teach/preach it. In brief my answer is that we need more who are working at it.

Back to top

Q: Are there terms other than "process" that relate to the subject of process?

A: Some like the term "progress" but it seems to me that is quite subjective. "Evolution" seems to fit but tends to relate more to natural science than religion in the minds of many and "monkeys" immediately come to mind. We need to work on answers to that question. Some in "process thought" are looking for a more adequately descriptive term and haven't found it.

Back to top

Q: How do we achieve an environment of maturity, mental health, and commitment?

A: I have great faith in human beings sharing experiences, thoughts, and beliefs as long as they are all on "level ground" and each is endeavoring to learn from the others as well as clarify more their own positions. Commitment comes with harmonizing a belief system with life and the attachment of a high value priority to it. Searching, learning, and growth seem to be key elements. It is important in all "process" discussion groups that everyone is in agreement that they are there to share and learn, and not to impose a belief system on anyone.

Back to top

Q: Do You believe in miracles?

A: Not in the traditional sense of God intervening to do something contrary to natural law. This is not to say that awesome things cannot happen that surprise and/or that we do not understand. Process theology has to do with how God works. God works through a process rather than through miraculous intervention. The compounding of knowledge and experience has given us a world view much different from that of those who were part of "scripture making" thousands of years ago. Many more "miraculous" happenings occur now than 2000 years ago, but typically they occur as God works through human beings over a long period of time involving a slow process of learning, experimentation, failure, success, etc. The "spark of life" which makes a fetus into something that is much more than a growing body of flesh is perhaps the greatest miracle we human beings ever witness and/or share in the process.

Back to top

Q: Is it likely that "process" will come out of the closet soon?

A: Hopefully. It will likely be a slow process. Keep in mind that the Christian church started with a small number of persons who came to believe there was "a better way". That is the secret. Compounding can grow quickly when people really believe in what they want to grow. It is ironic that church politics and extreme conservatism are its main "enemies" Social pressure also slows advancement. Many people have held "closet" beliefs very harmonious with "process" for a long time but were uneasy about sharing their thoughts with others--especially to or in the church. I have noticed that typically the news media is slow to pick up on the wonderful possibilities in process thought. Much of what I do simply gives permission for persons to be honest in thinking about what they really believe.

Back to top

Q: Is there any way to know whether God has guide lines for people, or is that part of why we are here, to figure out those guide lines? Or are we just so very slow to pick up what the great teachers have already given us, as with Jesus who taught the importance of faith, love, relationships and behavior.

A: The teachings of the great teachers are not true because they taught them. They are true because they prove themselves to be positive contributors to quality life when persons put specific teachings into practice. Human beings learn great truths slowly and then put them into practice even more slowly. It takes time and discipline to change habits. That, however, is part of what makes life both challenging and exciting. The reason some "writings" have come to be respected as scripture is because they contain great truths which, when followed, make life better. Some things we ought not have to "learn again". Some "great truths" can be improved on. Human beings are always in the process of "becoming". Discovering better guide lines and living by them is what helps us "become" better persons. Becoming better is a partial source of joy and fulfillment. Don't we each really want to leave our world a bit better than we found it--and--don't we really take great pride when we become aware that our children are better in some important ways than we are!

Back to top

Q: What sources other than the Bible do you like?

A: Keep in mind that I indicate early on in MAKING GOD-TALK MAKE SENSE, that the book is a digest of much study and experience. It represents growth based on much good thinking from the past. I am sometimes accused of neglecting the Bible, which of course is untrue. I find it necessary to ignore some parts of the Bible and to reinterpret some portions. I believe that God did not say everything that needs to be said and I do not believe that God speaks in a "biblical monotone"s". God speaks to us and nudges us in a number of different ways. I have spent years reading what others have said both within and outside the Bible. I did not include Appendix I as a chapter because I wanted it to be a reference rather than part of the body of what I wanted to accomplish in the book. I no longer spend time reading great theologians of the past. I have done that. I find process thought must feed on what we have learned in the past combined with current events, new discoveries, technological advances, etc. Isn't it exciting to know that a religious belief system can evolve harmoniously with changing we experience in the world of relationships and discovery! A process approach to religious beliefs, and their application is exciting because it is always nudging us "forward and upward". I now read more magazines and periodicals than books--especially books from the past. I find many sermons to be boring and in a religious rhetoric that enables the listener to interpret in a way different from what the sermonizer may truly believe. For that reason I am very selective in sermons that I listen to or read but listen closely to what God may be saying outside the church.

Back to top

Q: What do you mean by expressing life more harmoniously with God"

A: As indicated previously "expression of life" has to do with behavior, attitude and everything else related to life over which human beings have control. "With God" is much more complex. First we know very little about God, what God is about and why. Having said that, if "God" means the Ultimate Source (Tillich said "The Ground Of Our Being) we have left plenty of room to add to or detract from whatever more specific definition we might choose. Knowledge of God as "Being" is not as important to us as how God works. If God is or is not a personality--that is o.k. because we don't have to respond to God with all that personality means. We have never met the "personality, GOD". We never expect to in this life because no one else has either. If we say God is capable of creating personality there are billions of people whose lives are testimony to that fact. We do have to deal with personalities--our own and others. The work of God is "about" natural creation. Jesus believed that God was about relationships and as a result of that belief, he emphasized the importance of the human-God relationship (Love God with all you heart, soul and might). Jesus believed that the relationship of human beings to one another "mattered" to God. He therefore taught that we should love our neighbor as ourself and treat others as we want them to treat us. If we believe that love is better than hate and that peace is better than war, then we can say that expressing life harmoniously with God means to work at loving and do everything possible to obliterate war as a means of "settling" problems. This principle can be applied to a multitude of human concerns. Is the use of certain recreational drugs harmful to the human body/mind? If so, and if God wishes us to be healthy and live out a normal life span, then we are working with God when we don't "use" and we are working against God when we do. As you can see by now, we don't know ALL about how God works. Something that we used to think was helpful and right, we now believe to be harmful and wrong. Learning more about right and wrong (working with God) is a process that never ends. It is therefore fair to say that learning how to live more harmoniously with God is a process that never ends. The more harmoniously we express our lives with the ways of God the happier we are, the more we accomplish, the more God accomplishes through us, and the more secure we are about life--and death. Viewing such learning as a process, and working diligently to express our lives in harmony with the ways of God is a gratifying process and a worthy goal for each human being.

Back to top

Q: How do you relate to fundamentalists in the church?

A: It is important to keep in mind that we are "in control" of ourselves and no one else. Our goal is to be loving and accepting of others regardless of how primitive and out of harmony with the world as we understand it, we perceive them to be. We cannot control how they respond to us, and as long as we are loving and do not attempt to "force" their minds "open", their response to us is their responsibility, not ours. We should feel obligated to be honest, and free to share our views as opportunity is provided. Who know but what some day they may have an "aha" experience which opens their eyes to a broader view of healthy religion also. To put it another way, it is important that we do not utilize an approach in attitude or behavior, which "outfundy" the fundamentalist.

Back to top

Q: How do you get people to listen long enough to know that what you are saying isn't radical?

A: In addition to my response to the previous question I suggest that much patience is required. It helps me to remember the struggle I experience in moving from fundamentalism to a more realistic and defensible theology. With "tongue in cheek" I'll suggest that you give them a copy of my book and tell them not to read it until they feel like it, and then to take (and digest) one chapter at a time. The current trend towards instant gratification often makes "thinking through" challenging.

Back to top

Q: Isn't it the fear of hell that keeps people in line?

A: That is often true and that way is better than not "being in line". It seems that Jesus did not hesitate to use the "fear of hell" as a tool, however, as a second choice rather than primary. He seemed to have emphasized "love" and "right" more than the negative. Hell has been a primary tool of the church across the centuries and continues to be for most fundamentalist and evangelical churches. Emphasizing the rewards of doing right is probably a more enduring approach. Much of our justice system is based on fear and most of us acknowledge that it is in need of an "overhaul". Hell is one lever that fundamentalists use effectively and that "Process" oriented folks don't have. What we do have is an emphasis on the idea that sowing good seed produces a good crop. We do reap what we sow and sometimes we reap what others sow. There is plenty of reason to "do good" for "goodness sake". Fear of the consequences of breaking rules often causes human beings to become very creative in attempting to find ways to break the rules without being caught. The positive approach does not create that problem. I will not be surprised if some day we discover that society creates most of its criminals. The exception would be genetic errors or shortcomings. Even there, we may discover that we are in a process of influencing genetics in a way that we do not know. It is indeed challenging to feel responsible about what we know and much more about what we don't yet know! The purpose of guilt is to help us "straighten out" where we haven fallen short with knowledge. There is no reason or need to feel guilty for what we do not yet know. When we learn, then we can change and either prevent or neutralize the guilt by attitude and behavior.

Back to top

Q: You use the word "expression" in Chapter XVIII (MAKING GOD TALK MAKE SENSE) a number of times...What do you mean by the term "expression".

A: A combination of attitude, behavior, and utilization of energy in every way.

Back to top

Q: Aren't you rationalizing the term "prayer" when process means so much more? Are you just being careful not to upset us?

A: Effective communication is challenging but always must begin at the point where persons have a common, or nearly common understanding about that about which they wish to communicate. Prayer is such an integral part of all religions including Christianity, that it must be addressed in relation to "process thought". "Redefining" therefore means that I am taking a word which has some kind of meaning to all religious folks and explaining it in a manner that harmonizes with "process (realistic) theology". I am not as much concerned about upsetting you (sometimes that is part of the process of getting our attention.) as I am in finding a common point of beginning from which communication can start. Prayer is a subject that is very important to religion but is in great need of redefinition. Just think of how radically different our lives would be if the only resources available to us were those made available by "prayer" in the traditional sense. Think "Whatever you desire when you pray, believe and you will receive them". Think "The prayer of faith shall save the sick". Few resources are made available to us by the simple act of traditional prayer and the simple response of a "loving Father" responding to the voiced wishes or needs of a child.

Back to top

Q: A couple of weeks ago you gave an answer to the question, "Why are we born?" We'd like your answer again, with the emphasis on "Why".

A: Combine my previous answer with this one for a more complete response. We are not born because God chose that we should be born--many other decisions on the part of many human beings went into that (a process). If I understand the question, it has to do with purpose, i.e. for what purpose are we born? That again is not because of God willing that we should accomplish certain things and then insisting that we do it. We inherit genetic gifts. With these gifts come options from which we make choices. Even this has to do with choices made by previous generations. Our inherited genetics come from choices of persons in previous generations. We also inherit an environment which impacts our decision making process. Within the environment are many needs calling for someone to respond and nudge them on to a higher level on the endless journey to perfection. The answer to "for what purpose are we born" is found in our personal response to life, i.e. the way and degree to which we respond to personal responsibility--which comes with birth. Perhaps it will stimulate your attention when I say that Jesus did not have to do what he did. He saw needs and responded with the genetic and environmental gifts available to him. He made the choices. That is also what we should do.

Back to top

Q: Have you had any experience with past life regression? Comments?

A: No. I have no more interest in utilizing interest in "past life regression" than I have in committing energy to theories or wondering about "after death progress", i.e. immortality. This life, and the world in which we are privileged to live it, are far to awesome to waste time thinking about either the past (prior to birth) or the future (after physical death). Why cheat ourselves and others of the contributions we can make in the "here and now" by spending time on what we can't change or do anything about?

Back to top

Q: Are "faith" and "positive outlook" the same thing?

A: Close--with variations. Faith can be in our Creator, ourselves and/or others. It nurtures a positive outlook on life. A positive outlook on life nurtures a belief that life is designed to be a "good" experience and that nothing can be so bad that some good cannot come from it. (The crucifixion of Jesus/War etc.) The combination of "faith", and "positive attitude" brings "hope". These three elements are essential to the fulfillment of human life and the joy of experiencing it.

Back to top

Q: Which is more powerful, "faith" or hope"? How are they different?

A: This is something like asking which is more important, breathing or the beating of the heart. Both are essential to a fulfilling experience of living. The combination of the two affects attitude, behavior, and the level of joy found in life. (See answer to previous question.)

Back to top

Q: How important to God is human death?

A: I really am not in a position to answer for God, but realizing that the question cannot be addressed to God, I'll share a hunch. The fact of death is clearly important to God because it is an important and natural part of life which cannot be avoided. As soon as we are conceived we are sentenced to death. I suspect that unfulfilled life, and/or untimely death is a matter of great concern to God. Human life is commonly believed to be naturally oriented for a life span within brackets. The death of one generation provides opportunities for the generation that follows. Each of us can impact our own and subsequent generations. It appears that this can go on eternally. For this reason I say "human death" is not a concern to God. How and when human death occurs is a matter of concern to God.

This response says something about a healthy attitude toward longevity. It should also stimulate us to consider