What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles Hartshorne
Alan Gragg criticizes Hartshorne's highly optimistic view of humanity, and hence its lack of emphasis on human depravity, guilt and sin. Allied to these criticisms is the assertion that Hartshorne overemphasizes aesthetics and is correspondingly weak on ethics and morality.
- GenresTheologyPhilosophy
127 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1973
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 29, 2021
For some, the Makers of the Modern Theological Mind series may seem like the Cliff Notes or Spark Notes way to do theology. In some ways, that would be accurate. The authors of this series have synthesized the wide body of work from each of these prominent theologians, but they have also taken the time to respond to the arguments/positions of their subjects. To be sure, much of each volume is a summary exposition of the subject theologian, but the final chapter in each is extremely important in terms of putting their work in an evangelical perspective.
Makers of Modern Theology: Charles Hartshorne is slightly different from the rest of the series in that Hartshorne’s work is predominantly philosophical/metaphysical rather than “theological” in the traditional sense of being centered on Bible and ecclesiastical tradition. Indeed, the biographical chapter with which each of these books begins, describes Hartshorne as a clergyman’s son with a “religious reverence for intellectual integrity” (p. 11) who studied under philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidigger rather than focusing on theology (p. 12).He was also heavily influenced by the pragmatism of C. S. Peirce, the evolutionary perspective of Henri Bergsen, and the process philosophy of mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (p. 13). For those of us of more traditional theological bent, Alan Gragg summarizes the problem we will encounter with Hartshorne right away: “…some process theologians are prepared to dispense partially or wholly with the idea that Jesus Christ is either the essential basis or central core of theology, …” (p. 19).
Despite that weakness, it is still worth considering Hartshorne (as long as one recognizes that marginalizing the Christ-event is unacceptable) for two major reasons: 1) his consideration of problems regarding traditional theism and 2) how both cosmic being and cosmic becoming is an act of love. For example, traditional theism tends to: 1) support a lack of relationship between humanity and nature (p. 79), 2) omnipotence which [according to Hartshorne] does not allow for shared power (p. 80) [alas, Hartshorne ignores the possibility of God’s self-limitation], 3) a static God when a dynamic world demands a dynamic God (p. 80), 4) omniscience which doesn’t take actuality and freedom into consideration (p. 80), 5) an unresponsive God when “love” makes no sense unless God wants what is best for us and responds to our interactions (p. 81), and 6) an unmoved God when a God of love cannot help but be grieved by human rebellion (p. 81).
Since Hartshorne’s emphasis is on “becoming,” it is extremely important that his version of “panentheism” is social: “Cosmic being is cosmic experience, is cosmic sociality or love.” (pp. 89, 90) His logic concerning this social interaction which is love means that Hartshorne could argue, “Theology is an attempted psychology of deity.” (p. 94) On the same page is Hartshorne’s conviction that God rules the world by persuasion (p. 94).This is a good concept and, though Hartshorne doesn’t follow it up, could well be reconciled with biblical theology.
But Alan Gragg’s criticism is quite correct to observe that Hartshorne has no apocalyptic hope (p. 96). Hartshorne doesn’t want any personal continuity after death, seeing the individual absorbed into a becoming deity through divine memory. As a result, I appreciate Gragg’s comment that Hartshorne is so focused on recovering the reality of becoming that he does not do justice to the reality of being (p. 105). Perhaps, though, the most stinging criticism was Gragg’s observation that if Hartshorne really perceived the cosmic deity as an entity of love, some kind of moral demand for righteousness would surely not be unreasonable (p. 113).
The beauty of Hartshorne’s philosophy and theology is that it allows for an individualization of deity that isn’t necessarily present in Whitehead and Bergsen. Traditional Christians need to hear Hartshorne regarding the “unsurpassable” nature of God and the connection between nature, God, and humanity which could form a corrective to the misunderstanding of the Genesis admonition to have “dominion” over the earth, and as a result, a stronger ecological thrust for theology.
Having just read A Natural Theology for Our Time by Hartshorne, it was extremely worthwhile for me to get the bird’s-eye view of Hartshorne’s work, as well as read Gragg’s cogent observations on the limitations of accepting Hartshorne’s philosophy/theology “whole cloth.” This volume is a marvelous addition to the series and will stay on my shelf for some time to come.
Makers of Modern Theology: Charles Hartshorne is slightly different from the rest of the series in that Hartshorne’s work is predominantly philosophical/metaphysical rather than “theological” in the traditional sense of being centered on Bible and ecclesiastical tradition. Indeed, the biographical chapter with which each of these books begins, describes Hartshorne as a clergyman’s son with a “religious reverence for intellectual integrity” (p. 11) who studied under philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidigger rather than focusing on theology (p. 12).He was also heavily influenced by the pragmatism of C. S. Peirce, the evolutionary perspective of Henri Bergsen, and the process philosophy of mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (p. 13). For those of us of more traditional theological bent, Alan Gragg summarizes the problem we will encounter with Hartshorne right away: “…some process theologians are prepared to dispense partially or wholly with the idea that Jesus Christ is either the essential basis or central core of theology, …” (p. 19).
Despite that weakness, it is still worth considering Hartshorne (as long as one recognizes that marginalizing the Christ-event is unacceptable) for two major reasons: 1) his consideration of problems regarding traditional theism and 2) how both cosmic being and cosmic becoming is an act of love. For example, traditional theism tends to: 1) support a lack of relationship between humanity and nature (p. 79), 2) omnipotence which [according to Hartshorne] does not allow for shared power (p. 80) [alas, Hartshorne ignores the possibility of God’s self-limitation], 3) a static God when a dynamic world demands a dynamic God (p. 80), 4) omniscience which doesn’t take actuality and freedom into consideration (p. 80), 5) an unresponsive God when “love” makes no sense unless God wants what is best for us and responds to our interactions (p. 81), and 6) an unmoved God when a God of love cannot help but be grieved by human rebellion (p. 81).
Since Hartshorne’s emphasis is on “becoming,” it is extremely important that his version of “panentheism” is social: “Cosmic being is cosmic experience, is cosmic sociality or love.” (pp. 89, 90) His logic concerning this social interaction which is love means that Hartshorne could argue, “Theology is an attempted psychology of deity.” (p. 94) On the same page is Hartshorne’s conviction that God rules the world by persuasion (p. 94).This is a good concept and, though Hartshorne doesn’t follow it up, could well be reconciled with biblical theology.
But Alan Gragg’s criticism is quite correct to observe that Hartshorne has no apocalyptic hope (p. 96). Hartshorne doesn’t want any personal continuity after death, seeing the individual absorbed into a becoming deity through divine memory. As a result, I appreciate Gragg’s comment that Hartshorne is so focused on recovering the reality of becoming that he does not do justice to the reality of being (p. 105). Perhaps, though, the most stinging criticism was Gragg’s observation that if Hartshorne really perceived the cosmic deity as an entity of love, some kind of moral demand for righteousness would surely not be unreasonable (p. 113).
The beauty of Hartshorne’s philosophy and theology is that it allows for an individualization of deity that isn’t necessarily present in Whitehead and Bergsen. Traditional Christians need to hear Hartshorne regarding the “unsurpassable” nature of God and the connection between nature, God, and humanity which could form a corrective to the misunderstanding of the Genesis admonition to have “dominion” over the earth, and as a result, a stronger ecological thrust for theology.
Having just read A Natural Theology for Our Time by Hartshorne, it was extremely worthwhile for me to get the bird’s-eye view of Hartshorne’s work, as well as read Gragg’s cogent observations on the limitations of accepting Hartshorne’s philosophy/theology “whole cloth.” This volume is a marvelous addition to the series and will stay on my shelf for some time to come.
Displaying 1 of 1 review