Download the full version of the ebook at

https://ebookultra.com

God Reconsidered The Promise and Peril of

Process Theology 1st Edition Al Truesdale

https://ebookultra.com/download/god-reconsidered-
the-promise-and-peril-of-process-theology-1st-
edition-al-truesdale/

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Square Peg Why Wesleyans Aren t Fundamentalists 1st

Edition Al Truesdale

https://ebookultra.com/download/square-peg-why-wesleyans-aren-t-
fundamentalists-1st-edition-al-truesdale/

ebookultra.com

The Poverty of Riches St Francis of Assisi Reconsidered

Oxford Studies in Historical Theology Kenneth Baxter Wolf

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-poverty-of-riches-st-francis-of-
assisi-reconsidered-oxford-studies-in-historical-theology-kenneth-
baxter-wolf/
ebookultra.com

The Promise God s Purpose and Plan for When Life Hurts
Jonathan Morris

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-promise-god-s-purpose-and-plan-
for-when-life-hurts-jonathan-morris/

ebookultra.com

Provocation and Punishment The Anger of God in the Book of

Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic Theology Samantha Joo

https://ebookultra.com/download/provocation-and-punishment-the-anger-
of-god-in-the-book-of-jeremiah-and-deuteronomistic-theology-samantha-
joo/
ebookultra.com
The Living God systematic theology Second Printing Edition
Thomas C. Oden

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-living-god-systematic-theology-
second-printing-edition-thomas-c-oden/

ebookultra.com

The Search for God s Law Islamic Jurisprudence in the

Writings of Sayf al Din al Amidi Bernard G Weiss

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-search-for-god-s-law-islamic-
jurisprudence-in-the-writings-of-sayf-al-din-al-amidi-bernard-g-weiss/

ebookultra.com

Process Theology A Guide for the Perplexed 1st Edition

Bruce G. Epperly

https://ebookultra.com/download/process-theology-a-guide-for-the-
perplexed-1st-edition-bruce-g-epperly-2/

ebookultra.com

Process Theology A Guide for the Perplexed 1st Edition

Bruce G. Epperly

https://ebookultra.com/download/process-theology-a-guide-for-the-
perplexed-1st-edition-bruce-g-epperly/

ebookultra.com

God as Reason Essays in Philosophical Theology 1st Edition

Edition Vittorio Hosle

https://ebookultra.com/download/god-as-reason-essays-in-philosophical-
theology-1st-edition-edition-vittorio-hosle/

ebookultra.com
God Reconsidered The Promise and Peril of Process
Theology 1st Edition Al Truesdale Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Al Truesdale
ISBN(s): 9780834130678, 083413067X
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 4.78 MB
Year: 2010
Language: english
Copyright 2010
by Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City

© 2013 eISBN 978-0-8341-3067-8

Printed in the
United States of America

Cover Design: Arthur Cherry

Interior Design: Sharon Page

All Scripture quotations not otherwise designated are from the New Revised Standard Version
(nrsv) of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. All rights reserved.
Scripture marked kjv is from the King James Version of the Bible.
The following copyrighted versions of the Bible are used by permission:
The New King James Version (nkjv). Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights
reserved.
The Holy Bible, New International Version® (niv®). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Interna-
tional Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
God reconsidered : the promise and peril of process theology / Al Truesdale, editor.
  p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p.   ).
ISBN 978-0-8341-2537-7 (pbk.)
1. Process theology. I. Truesdale, Albert, 1941-
BT83.6.G63 2010
230'.046—dc22
2010012314
 Contributors
Timothy J. Crutcher, Ph.D./S.T.D.
Southern Nazarene University
Bethany, Oklahoma

Craig Keen, Ph.D.

Professor of Systematic Theology
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Nathan R. Kerr, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy
Trevecca Nazarene University
Nashville

Thomas Jay Oord, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology and Philosophy
Northwest Nazarene University
Nampa, Idaho

Brent Peterson, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology
Northwest Nazarene University
Nampa, Idaho

Samuel Powell, Ph.D.

Professor of Philosophy and Theology
Point Loma Nazarene University
San Diego

Eric Severson, ABD, Boston University

Assistant Professor of Religion
Eastern Nazarene College
Quincy, Massachusetts

Al Truesdale, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Christian Ethics
Nazarene Theology Seminary
Kansas City

John W. Wright, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology and Scripture
Point Loma Nazarene University
San Diego
 Contents
Introduction
1. The Promise of Process Theology (Samuel Powell)
2. The Peril of Process Theology (Timothy J. Crutcher)
3. What Becomes of Revelation and the Scriptures? (John W. Wright)
4. What Becomes of the Triune God? (Samuel Powell)
5. What Becomes of Jesus Christ the Lord? (Nathan R. Kerr)
6. What Becomes of the Historic Creeds? (Al Truesdale)
7. What Becomes of the Church and Christian Discipleship? (Eric Severson)
8. What Becomes of Evil, Sin, Grace, and Salvation? (John W. Wright)
9. What Becomes of Community, the Neighbor, and the Dispossessed? (Craig Keen)
10. What Becomes of God’s Continuing Relationship to the World (Al Truesdale)
11. What Becomes of the Consummation of the Kingdom of God, and
Christian Hope? (Brent Peterson)
12. Open Theology (Timothy J. Crutcher)
13. A Perfect Theology Never Existed: A Rejoinder (Thomas Jay Oord)
Conclusion
Appendixes
Notes
 “Name him, Christians, name him,
With love strong as death,
name with awe and wonder
and with bated breath;
he is God the Savior, he is Christ the Lord,
ever to be worshipped,
trusted, and adored.”
(Caroline Maria Noel, 1817-77)
 Introduction
Rick regretted seeing his neighbor move. “I had just gotten to know him
well enough to borrow his tools!” Question the value behind Rick’s state-
ment, but he unveiled a universal human characteristic: we borrow.
We don’t have tools for working or ingredients for baking? Then bor-
row them from a neighbor. Whole cultures borrow. Post-WWII Japan freely
adopt­ed a Western-style government and economy and then made them
their own. Kings borrow. The biblical Book of First Kings tells how Solomon
imported horse-drawn chariots from Egypt (1 Kings 10:26-29). Much earlier
(ca. 1720 b.c.) the Egyptians “borrowed” that technology from the conquer-
ing Hyksos.
Church history shows that Christian theologians borrow. They began
early. To proclaim the gospel to the Greco-Roman world, some New Testa-
ment authors borrowed concepts and tools that, strictly speaking, were not
part of Jesus’ ministry. To explain Jesus’ relationship to God, the Gospel of
John borrows and transforms a concept—logos—used in Hebrew poetry to
personify the divine will and wisdom. The Jewish philosopher Philo (20
b.c.-a.d. 50) used the term to express the free exercise of God’s energies and
to reconcile Greco-Roman culture with Judaism. Logos also played a central
role in Stoic philosophy. The apostle Paul skillfully used forms of rhetoric
that were stock-in-trade for well-educated Greco-Romans. In his famous
speech in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), he used knowledge of Stoic and Epicurean
philosophy to proclaim the gospel.
Borrowing didn’t end there. In the second century the skilled apologist
Athenagoras (d. 177) liberally used the Greeks—especially Plato—to defend
Christianity against its Greco-Roman accusers. Origen of Alexandria (185-
232)—a Christian with a first-rate classical education—defended Chris-
tian “borrowing.” He compared it to the children of Israel “plunder[ing] the
Egyptians” as they hastily escaped Egyptian slavery (Exod. 3:16-22). Later,
Augustine (a.d. 354-430) employed the metaphor. He said when done care-
fully, Christians deeply rooted in Christ can mine secular literature, science,
and philosophy to better understand the faith and communicate the gospel.
Tertullian of Carthage (a.d. 160-240) on the other hand opposed borrowing
from Greco-Roman philosophy.
 And what of the great Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509-64)? Da-
vid C. Steinmetz says that “when Calvin read the Bible, he did so, not only in
company with his contemporaries and the Christian traditions that formed
them, but also in an inescapable dialogue with the ancient philosophers of
Athens and Rome—their wisdom, their faults, their ideas, both good and
bad. . . . They . . . were as familiar and comfortable to him as the streets of
his native Noyon.”1
What about John Wesley (1703-91)—one of the principal leaders of the
eighteenth-century evangelical revival? Where did this man who said, “Let
me be a man of one book” (the Bible) stand with reference to “borrowing”?2
Like Martin Luther and John Calvin before him, Wesley intended all his
preaching and teaching be grounded in and governed by the Scriptures. But
left alone, “a man of one book” is misleading. According to Methodist theolo-
gian Albert Outler, Wesley masterfully “understood and practiced [the] art of
‘plundering the Egyptians’—their arts and letters, their philosophy and sci-
ence, their political and moral insights.”3 Wesley’s post-1725 reading record
includes more than fourteen hundred different authors. D. Stephen Long
notes that Wesley commended to Methodist preachers for their edification
the works of Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Nicolas Malebranche, and
more.4 Outler adds that not only did Wesley “plunder the Egyptians,” but he
encouraged us to “go and do likewise.”5
However, a major warning is attached to Wesley’s counsel. “Plundering
the Egyptians” does not mean we should “remain in Egypt.”6 Even if, as Long
claims, Wesley did not always succeed, he always sought to place his preach-
ing and teaching and all he “borrowed” under scriptural governance.7 He
also was closely tutored by Christian tradition—the formative ecumenical
creeds and individual theologians long revered by the church as instructive.
So governed, Wesley sought “skillfully to manage”8 the “art” of borrowing,
an art he inherited from the New Testament onward.
Why do theologians borrow? They borrow to more effectively commu-
nicate the gospel to the ecclesiastical, cultural, and historical contexts in
which they work. That was true of the author of John’s Gospel, and it is true
of the theologians who identify as “process theologians.” Normally, “mis-
sion” motivates them. Schubert M. Ogden, prominent process and Method-
ist theologian during the latter part of the twentieth century, explains. “The
theologian defaults in his responsibility if he does not make an earnest effort
to state the eternal word of the Christian gospel in a way that will seem both
meaningful and true to men who live in a particular time in and for which
he has his theological vocation.”9
 But borrowing has its limits. If I plan to borrow my neighbor’s shov-
el I should think about what he might expect in return. A simple “Thank
you”? Or, will he accompany the shovel and tell me where to dig? How deep?
Where to plant the rosebush? Might he require me to plant dogwoods in-
stead of roses? If that were to happen, I would probably forego the shovel and
consider digging with my bare hands.
The same holds true for theology. When a source outside the Christian
faith—economics, psychology, or philosophy—shows promise of benefiting
Christian proclamation, the conditions for “borrowing” must be carefully
examined. Failure to inspect might later find us digging where and planting
what we never intended. Fidelity to the Scriptures and Christian tradition
excludes all “plundering of the Egyptians” that jeopardizes, or fails to en-
hance, fundamental Christian convictions. What will the status of the Chris-
tian faith be as expressed in the Bible and the formative, ecumenical creeds
once we borrow? Who and what would the church worship and proclaim?
There is another dimension to borrowing. Have you ever borrowed and
later discovered high on a shelf, or tucked in a drawer, you already owned
the item you walked across the street to borrow?
As we shall see, that can happen in theology. Philosopher Charles Hart­
shorne charged that the dominant traditional Christian doctrine of God’s
perfection made him impassible (not really involved in the world, incapable
of suffering or experiencing emotions). Hartshorne believed such a God to
be inadequate to the picture of God the Bible offers and to our actual experi-
ence of God. To overcome the deficiency, Hartshorne offered the corrective
resources of process philosophy.10 But Christian theologians have searched
other “Christian shelves” and have discovered rich resources already present
in the doctrine of the Trinity that show God to be intensely active in and
affected by the world. German theologian Jurgen Moltmann has done this
in The Crucified God.11 British theologian Colin Gunton has shown how the
relational structure of human life is itself grounded in the mutual self-giving
that characterizes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.12
Process theologians are theologians who borrow from a school of thought
known as process philosophy.13 They think its resources can richly benefit
Christian life and proclamation. This is particularly true, they say, in an era
when modern physics has significantly affected our understanding of the
world and human life. In harmony with the relational quality of modern
physics, process philosophy explores the developmental and relational charac-
ter of reality. It emphasizes becoming rather than static existence (as was char-
acteristic of Newtonian physics). It stresses the interrelatedness of all things
(entities). In fact, “to be actual is to be a process.”14 All reality—including
God—is ultimately composed of experiences (experiential events) that have
the potential to achieve novel value. This is set against the old notion that the
world is composed of passive and inactive (inert) matter or substance that
just endures through time. Both God and the world are seen as dynamic and
intensely interactive—relational “everything affects everything else.”15
The experiential events that constitute God and the world selectively
gather up past experiential events, incorporate them into their own complex
life, and “enjoy” and preserve them. Their achieved value may be incorpo-
rated into subsequent experiential events.
Instead of being distant from the world, God is essentially and uniquely
related to it, and the world is uniquely related to him (all existence—God
included—is essentially relational). He is “an active participant in an open-
ended creative process.”16 God maximizes the potential for value in all its
forms. He comprehensively experiences and values the world’s moral, aes-
thetic, and religious beauty. Moreover, he is himself enriched by achieved
value, incorporates it into his own life, and then uses it to provide goals for
the world’s future. Rather than coerce, God “lures the world toward new
forms of realization,”17 toward “depths of harmony” that are revelatory of
God.18 We can see that God and the world are in a process of becoming.
Process theologians integrate these themes into their understanding of
the Christian faith. They intend to augment Christian faith and practice. For
them, Scripture and Christian tradition constitute a dynamic and expanding
story of varying interpretations and applications. Our appraisals of both are
subject to modification if human experience and reflection require it. Chris-
tians must learn to interpret the changing shapes of tradition, creatively con-
tribute to the process, and bravely make use of additional ways of thinking
that might not have been available in the past. Process theologian Marjorie
Suchocki says, “Process people think that Scripture speaks deeply about a
relational world to whom and with whom God also relates. So why not use a
philosophy that is relational—like Process philosophy?”19
When the Christian faith is understood, stated, and practiced in light of
process philosophy, process theologians assure us, it becomes much richer.
Long-standing deficiencies in how Christians have understood God and the
world are overcome. Christian doctrine can be so stated so as to make it
more comprehensible to today’s Christians, more lucid for those who inquire
about Christianity, and more responsive to other religions.
However, not everyone is convinced. Critics question whether process the-
ology20 renders faithful service to the Christian faith as its proponents claim,
or whether it is best considered an alternative to apostolic Christianity. Maybe
it should be judged as but another dangerous competitor tracked by church
history.21 Many observers think process theology tries to convert the Christian
faith into an obedient servant of process philosophy—all the while claiming
just the opposite. This volume airs some of the primary claims made in sup-
port of process theology and the charges leveled against it.
Two major proponents of process philosophy were mathematician and
philosopher Alfred N. Whitehead (1861-1947) and philosopher Charles
Hartshorne (1897-2000). Hartshorne went much further than Whitehead
in spelling out the theological implications of process thought. He believed
he was helping Christians speak more correctly and convincingly about the
God whom they confess.
Daniel Day Williams (1910-73) was an early process theologian. Some
more recent leaders of process theology are John B. Cobb Jr., Schubert Og-
den, David Ray Griffin, and Marjorie Suchocki. The Center for Process Stud-
ies publishes Process Studies, a scholarly journal devoted to discussing process
theology.22
Process theology usually takes the form of philosophical theology. This
simply means that its advocates freely use philosophical concepts to frame
their understanding of Christian doctrine. There is nothing inherently
wrong with this. But it does entail that persons who try to explain process
theology to lay readers have their work cut out for them. The contributors to
this volume are working as “translators.”
The ancient Greeks told of a king named Procrustes who enjoyed be-
ing hospitable to his guests. But he harbored some strange notions about
hospitality. If an overnight guest was shorter than the king’s bed, Procrustes
would have the guest stretched to fit. If the guest was too long, the king
would have his surgeon chop off all that hung over the end. Prospective
guests were wise to ask in advance about Procrustes’ hospitality.
The contributors to this volume examine whether process theology of-
fers the Christian faith a Procrustean bed, or whether the “process bed” fits
Christianity “to a T,” as process theologians claim.
Chapter 1 explains why process theologians believe the Christian faith
should appropriate process thought. Chapter 2 examines some primary com-
ponents of process theology that are particularly troubling for persons com-
mitted to classical or traditional Christian faith. In Chapter 3 we will look at
how Revelation and Scripture fare in the care of process theology. Chapter 4
explores what happens to the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity when
submitted to process interpretation. Chapter 5 investigates how historic
Christianity’s convictions regarding Jesus Christ fare under process care.
Chapter 6 does the same with reference to the historic creeds. Chapter 7 ex-
amines the process account of the church and Christian discipleship. Chap-
ter 8 asks, “What becomes of evil, sin, grace, and salvation?” when explained
by process theology. Chapter 9 examines the fruit of process theology from
the perspectives of community, the neighbor, and the dispossessed. Pro-
cess theology makes bold claims about its treatment of God’s relationship to
the world. Chapter 10 examines these claims from the perspective of God’s
freedom, faithfulness, and grace. The New Testament says the long-awaited
kingdom of God was inaugurated in Jesus’ ministry, and in the Father’s own
timing Jesus will consummate his kingdom. Chapter 11 examines whether
process theology does faithful service to Christian hope.
Open theism is a form of Christian theology that became quite attrac-
tive to many in the closing decades of the twentieth century. It continues to
be an important way for understanding God’s relationship to the world. It is
sufficiently important and sufficiently similar to process theology to warrant
distinct attention here. This happens in chapter 12.
A word of caution is in order. This book assesses the ideas and claims of
process theologians as they draw upon process philosophy. The authors of the
chapters might conclude that at least to some extent, process theology inad-
equately serves Christian faith and practice. That would be a judgment about
a type of theology, not a judgment about the piety of those who embrace it.
Only the Holy Spirit knows what takes place in prayer and worship be-
tween a Christian and his or her Redeemer. A Christian might commune
with and serve God in ways that rise above his or her theology or in ways
that descend beneath it.
No matter how one assesses the theology that undergirds John B Cobb’s
Reclaiming the Church, his impassioned hope for renewed mission in mainline
Christianity is unmistakable.23 And Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki speaks mov-
ingly of the “touched and tasted” sacraments that “nourish” the church.24
We will entrust careful doctrinal examination to the trained theologians.
But we will entrust examination of the heart only to the Holy Spirit. Together,
we are engaged in faith seeking understanding. That is why Tom Oord, a re-
spected Christian brother who has a greater appreciation for process thought
than the other contributors, has been asked to provide a response.
The appendix contains a glossary of terms process theologians use.
Readers not already familiar with process theology should freely consult the
glossary. The appendix also contains the Nicene, Chalcedonian, Apostles’,
and Athanasian Creeds.
 Chapter 1 Outline
Introduction

Process Theology and Science

Process Theology and the Doctrine of Creation

Questions About Theodicy

Process Theology and the Bible

Process Theology and Human Freedom

Conclusion
 1
The Promise of
Process Theology
Samuel Powell, Ph.D.

Introduction
Most essays in this book are critical of process theology. They are based
on the assumption that this theology is not sufficiently Christian. But even if
it is not, we have to account for the fact that many theologians find process
theology attractive and compelling. Why is this? Let’s examine five reasons.
Remember, process theology is not a church that demands total belief from
its members. It is a set of ideas. Anyone is free to adopt one or more of them.

Process Theology and Science

It’s no secret that for the past six hundred years Christian theology has
often had a rough time with science. The theory of evolution riles many
Christians. But before evolution there was debate about the age of the earth
and universe, and before that, unease about whether the earth lies at the
center of the universe.
It’s possible to exaggerate theology’s tension with science—plenty of sci-
entists have been Christians. Besides that, most Christians have made peace
with science’s claim that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Most
accept that the earth is much more than six thousand years old.
Process theology strikes a chord with some theologians because one of
its goals is to harmonize theology and science. Some Christians have a lot
of sympathy for this goal while others regard modern science as a tool of
the devil. They think attempts to harmonize theology with science mean
rejecting God’s inspired revelation. Process theology agrees with the former
group. From the beginning it has been committed to achieving harmony
between science and theology. So theologians who have a scientific outlook
and are sympathetic to science often find process theology attractive.
 We can trace process theology’s affinity with science back to one of its
founders, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). Whitehead was a math-
ematician familiar with new developments in twentieth-century physics.
His philosophy, which underlies process theology, was written in dialogue
with those developments. Because of the scientific character of Whitehead’s
thought, process theologians generally believe that human understanding in
all fields is dynamic and changeable, just as scientific theories change in re-
sponse to new discoveries. They hold that theology should likewise be sensi-
tive to discoveries in other disciplines, including the sciences. Theology, in
other words, should be flexible and adaptive to new knowledge.
Not surprisingly, when Christians who are scientists want to dialogue
with theologians, they often find it easiest to converse with process theolo-
gians. These Christians want to use scientific knowledge to help understand
their faith. Many theologians influenced by other types of Christian theology
have little or no interest in conversing with science. When scientists seek
dialogue, the results are usually disappointing. Such theologians may be
unaware of important issues or hostile toward science. This is unfortunate,
because the sciences raise many important questions for Christian faith.
Process theologians promote a spirit of openness to truth wherever it
is found. They believe science (as well as religion, the arts, and philosophy)
is one way we learn truth. Theology has nothing to fear from and much to
learn from science. Process theologians believe scientists have much to learn
from religion. They strive to unify the various avenues to truth.

Process Theology and the Doctrine of Creation

As noted, process theology rests on the philosophy of Alfred North
Whitehead. He was interested in creating a philosophy that combines the
truths of science and religion. He was especially concerned to understand
God’s relation to the world. As a result, process theology has always taken a
keen interest in the doctrine of creation and how God relates to the world.
Many process theologians see this as a chief strength.
Why is this so notable? Isn’t every theology keenly interested in the doc-
trine of creation and of God’s relation to the world? No. All Christian theolo-
gies make some formal statement about creation. But not all theologians find
the doctrine of creation critically important. Those who don’t, think other
doctrines are more central and deserve more attention.
If we were to survey Protestant theology through much of the twentieth
century, we would see other doctrines typically crowded out the doctrine
of creation. The twentieth century was marked by debates about the nature
of Scripture, salvation, and Jesus Christ. These are important matters. They
deserved all the attention they received. But the practical effect was that
theologians had little time and energy for creation.
So, it is significant that process theology has, from its start, devoted con-
siderable attention to the doctrine of creation. What accounts for this preoc-
cupation with creation when many other theologies neglected it? According
to process theology, the world is important to God. Doesn’t every theology
affirm that? After all, the Fourth Gospel tells us that God loves the world.
It’s true, every Christian theology affirms the world is important to
God. But process theologians point out that this affirmation doesn’t agree
very well with another traditional affirmation. From the beginning, Chris-
tian theologians have stated God is radically independent of the world and
doesn’t need the world. God created the world freely and not out of any sense
of need. God was perfectly complete and blessed in eternity before creation.
The world added nothing to God (since God was already perfect without it).
So, although God loves the world, God does not need the world.
Process theologians say this makes God seem aloof and less than per-
sonal. It is, they argue, essential for personal beings to be involved in the
lives of others. And so it is with God: God is supremely involved with others
because God is intimately related to every creature—human and nonhu-
man. God intimately feels what each creature feels. This has an effect on God,
just as our empathy with others has a deep effect on us. More important,
God’s experience of the world and of creatures in the world is an essential
part of God. Just as I am the person I am to a large extent because of the ex-
periences I have had, so to some extent, God is who God is because of God’s
experiences. They contribute to God being God.
If this is true, process theologians argue, then the traditional view of
God as radically independent of the world makes no sense. God’s experi-
ence is just as dependent on the world as our experience is dependent on
the people and things we experience. Without them we would have no ex-
perience and hence no “existence.” In the same way, without the world, God
would have no concrete experience of human joy, pain, despair, and trust.
God’s empathy for creatures fills God’s experience and enriches God’s life.
Without this, God would not be fully God.
Understandably, process theology has been at the forefront of environ-
mental concerns. Because the world and its creatures are so important to
God, they should be important to us as well. Preserving resources, protect-
ing habitats, and ending environmental degradation should be very impor-
tant for Christians; God has a stake in the world’s well-being.
 Process theology wants us to take seriously the world’s importance for
God. It wants us to stop thinking about God as detached and unaffected by
creatures and their experiences. Finally, it wants to instill in us an ethical
sensitivity so that concern for the environment becomes an important topic
for theology and the church.

Questions About Theodicy

Every theology has things about which it is greatly concerned. In many
cases, other types of theology show less concern about those things. Greek
Orthodox theology, for instance, is passionate about saints and icons. Prot-
estants are not.
A driving passion of process theology is theodicy. Theodicy is a theo-
logical term for the problem of evil. If God is all-good and all-powerful (om-
nipotent), then evil poses a problem. Why? If God is good, then God should
want to eliminate evil; if God is all-powerful, God can eliminate evil. But evil
exists. Therefore it seems that God is either not all-good or not all-powerful.
In either instance, God is not God.
Discussion of this problem has a long history in Christian thought;
many creative responses have been offered. Most theologians have held that
although God can eliminate evil, God chooses not to do so. If we ask why
God chooses not to eliminate evil, we find two varieties of answers: (1) in a
mysterious way, evil serves God’s purposes; (2) allowing evil to exist is the
price God pays for creating free beings.
Process theologians object to both answers. The basic problem is that
they assume God is all-powerful-able to eliminate evil but chooses not to.
The problem, process theologians say, is that the idea of an all-powerful
being doesn’t make sense. If God is all-powerful, then God would possess
all possible power. Humans and other creatures would have no power at all.
To use economic terms, power seems to be a zero-sum game: if God pos-
sesses all power, then humans possess zero. However, it seems obvious that
humans do have some power—we make choices, and actions have effects.
Therefore, process theologians conclude, God does not possess all power.
Theologians who believe that God is all-powerful think they have good
answers for process theologians. In particular, they don’t agree that power is
a zero-sum game. However, let’s follow process theologians’ line of thinking.
Their next step is that since God is not all-powerful, it is impossible for God
to eliminate all evil. Blaming God for evil is a mistake.
Process theologians’ solution to the problem of evil is a bit more in-
volved. In their view, there are two types of power: persuasive and coercive.
We use coercive power when we try to force someone or something (pets, for
example) to act contrary to their desire. Coercive power can also be called
physical power. We use our bodies to move things. If I explain to a child why
he or she should move away from a hot stove, I am using persuasive power.
If I physically lift the child and move the child away from the stove, I am
using coercive power.
Process theologians believe God possesses persuasive but not coercive
power. The reason is simple: God does not have a body. Without a physical
body, God is not able to move things as we do. As a result, if a comet or me-
teor is on a collision course with the earth, God will not be able to intervene
and save the earth. If a car is bearing down on a child walking across a street,
God cannot change the situation physically and save the child. None of this
means God wants these terrible things to happen. It just means God does not
have the power needed to make significant physical changes in the universe.
Instead, God attempts through persuasion to move all things toward God’s
goals. For example, instead of physically forcing each of us to care for our
neighbors, God sets before us the ideal of loving care and invites us to act ac-
cordingly. Because God uses only persuasion, God’s will is frustrated when
we creatures ignore persuasion and go our own way. Moreover, not only
would acting coercively undercut God’s character, but it would undermine
human freedom and dignity as well.
Theologians who object to process theology find plenty to dislike in its
theodicy. They don’t like its rejection of God as omnipotent. They don’t like
the way process theology restricts God’s action to persuasion. It is difficult,
critics charge, to believe in miracles (at least big, dramatic miracles) unless
you also believe that God can move physical objects around. Others object
to the idea that humans can frustrate God’s will. These objections are serious
and deserve consideration.
At the same time, we have to give credit to process theologians for tack-
ling a difficult subject. They have confronted a stubborn fact and tried to deal
with it responsibly. There is, after all, a massive amount of evil in the world.
Much evil does not seem to serve any divine purpose, and some people feel
that much of it could be eliminated without damaging human freedom. If
an undersea earthquake creates a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands of
people, what purpose can it serve? So they ask, would our freedom really be
compromised if God were to prevent the earthquake? Process theologians
have an answer: Isn’t it better to believe that God is simply not able to pre-
vent such physical events?
 Process Theology and the Bible
Discussion of theodicy prepares us to discuss how process theologians
interpret the Bible.
Theologians have always been impressed by biblical accounts of God’s
actions in the world. From stories such as parting the Red Sea and Jesus’
resurrection, theologians have concluded there are no limits to God’s power.
God’s will is unstoppable and unchangeable.
But other stories in the Bible present a somewhat different picture. In
Genesis, for instance, God seems to negotiate with Abraham about the de-
struction of Sodom. Abraham convinces God not to destroy the city if a few
righteous citizens could be found (Gen. 18:16-33). Similarly, in Exodus God
seems willing to be convinced by Moses not to destroy the Israelites (Exod.
32:7-14; Num. 14:10-19).
The prophetic literature also contains stories about God changing his
mind, as when God decides not to destroy Nineveh once the people repented
(Jon. 3:6-10). Such passages suggest God’s will is not necessarily set in con-
crete but is flexible. They suggest God takes notice of human actions and
responds appropriately. Instead of seeing God as rigidly pursuing a prede-
termined course of action through sheer power, they suggest God is willing
to act, observe, and act again in light of human response. God’s overall goal
may be fixed, but God is willing to change strategy in light of human obedi-
ence or stubbornness.
The Bible’s portrait of God’s actions and power is thus varied. Traditional
theology has focused on God’s power and developed doctrines of his om-
nipotence and changelessness. By contrast, process theologians believe such
emphases have overlooked the other way the Bible describes God—God’s
willingness to negotiate, to have a change of mind, and to explore alternative
strategies.
Process theologians have a theory about why most theologians have ig-
nored this other side of God: they have been influenced by a philosophical
idea of God that contradicts the Bible.
Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers held that God must be (1) in-
capable of change, and (2) incapable of being affected by the world (impas-
sible). In other words, God’s nature was fixed and unchanging, regardless of
what happens in the world. Greek and Roman philosophers thought change
and the ability to be affected by things were signs of weakness and limita-
tion. God, they felt, must be independent and fixed. God’s actions and will
must not depend in any way on human actions or other things in the world.
 Almost all early Christian theologians accepted this view of God.
Through the Middle Ages and the period of the Reformation, this was the
standard Christian perception. It remains the view of many Christians.
However, process theologians believe this perception contradicts the Bi-
ble. We simply cannot find in the Bible the belief that God does not change
and is unaffected by human deeds. On the contrary, process theologians
believe the Bible frequently portrays God as changing and adjusting plans in
response to human actions. They also emphasize that the Bible shows God
suffering because of human disobedience. Think of how Hosea and Ezekiel
depict God suffering as the husband of an unfaithful wife. Or think of God’s
anger in response to Israel’s sin.
Process theologians believe they are being faithful to the Bible’s picture
of God when they stress God is intimately involved in the world and highly
responsive to human action. A theology is needed that takes account of what
the Bible teaches regarding God’s relation to the world. Traditional theology
is poorly suited to do this.

Process Theology and Human Freedom

A central affirmation of process theology is that God does not predestine
events; God endows humans with free choice. This affirmation is one reason
process theology attracts many Wesleyan theologians.
To appreciate this point it is important to understand Wesleyan theol-
ogy in the Christian tradition. In Britain, Canada, and the United States,
Wesleyans have always been a minority. Even if we do not include Roman
Catholics, there have always been more non-Wesleyan Protestants than Wes-
leyans. More important, the dominant Protestant tradition in these countries
has been some form of Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) theology. Wesleyans have
usually found themselves in situations where the loudest Protestant voice
was Calvinist.
There are many admirable features of John Calvin’s theology. It has very
strong, helpful, and clear views about Scripture, the Holy Spirit, the church,
the sacraments, and many other subjects. However, it is also committed to
a strong view of predestination. Wesleyans find two features of this position
troubling: (1) God determines who will and will not be saved. God’s deci-
sion to save or not to save is primarily based not on faith or lack thereof,
but on God’s purposes. (2) The grace by which God leads us to repentance
and faith is “irresistible”; God’s grace always, unfailingly accomplishes God’s
purposes. Grace is causative—it causes us to have faith.
 As far back as John Wesley (1703-91), Wesleyans have objected to Cal-
vin’s understanding of predestination. There are several objections, one of
which is that the doctrine of irresistible grace seriously distorts the Bible’s
teaching.
Wesleyans agree with Calvin that we are saved by God’s grace alone
and that faith and repentance are given by God. However, Wesleyans do
not believe God’s grace is irresistible or that God’s purposes are always ac-
complished. On the contrary, they believe God’s purposes are often frus-
trated because people refuse to respond positively. God’s grace enables us to
respond in repentance and faith; but it does not compel or cause obedience.
Although all are touched by God’s grace, many turn away and refuse to re-
spond obediently. Wesleyans express this as freedom. Humans have a limited
freedom to respond or not to respond to God’s grace—a freedom God gives.
By now it should be obvious that process theology also affirms human
freedom and responsiveness to God. It does so for various reasons, including
some fairly complicated philosophical ones. Like Wesleyan theology, process
theology rejects the doctrine that God predestines and that grace guarantees
results. Like Wesleyan theology, it affirms that God offers grace to all and
everyone can be enabled to respond positively. Not surprisingly, many Wes-
leyan theologians have found process theologians to be kindred spirits.
As earlier mentioned, there is an important similarity between Wes-
leyans’ criticism of Calvin’s theology and how process theologians evaluate
much of traditional theology. Wesleyans believe Calvin’s theology of pre-
destination and grace ignores significant portions of the Bible. Similarly,
process theologians believe traditional theology seriously misinterprets the
Bible when it portrays God as incapable of change and as not being seriously
affected by the world.
Wesleyans and process theologians affirm limited human freedom and
believe God can empower free, obedient response. They agree that God in-
teracts intimately with human beings. No wonder, then, some process theo-
logians have thought that, of all the available Christian theologies, Wesley­
anism lies closest to their concerns and convictions.

Conclusion
Process theology is not a flawless theology. Essays that follow will dis-
cuss some of its limitations. But every theology, including Wesleyan theol-
ogy, has its limitations. Our responsibility is to separate the wheat from the
chaff—to discern the truth that process theology contains and to take it
seriously.
 Chapter 2 Outline
Introduction

Science, Reason, and Experience

God and the World

God’s Love and Power

Conclusion
 2
The Peril of Process Theology
Timothy J. Crutcher, Ph.D./S.T.D.

Introduction
All theology begins in the middle of things. In order to say anything
about God, one needs to assume that some things are just taken for grant-
ed. These assumptions might be deliberate and hypothetical (“If we say that
things are like this, then God must be . . .”), or they might result from deep-
seated intuitions (“I cannot imagine God or the world being any other way
than . . .”). In either case, certain commitments are always demanded up
front. This applies to process theology.
Some intuitions or commitments that ground process theology are
shared by traditional Christians. Other elements look very different from
ones traditional Christian faith embraces. Depending on who you talk to,
that could be either an affirmation or a critique. Either way, the convictions
that characterize traditional (orthodox) Christian faith provide a good place
to begin assessing the promise and the peril process theology presents in the
way it speaks of God and his relationship to the world.
This chapter concentrates on three fundamental aspects of process the-
ology that are particularly problematic for traditional Christian faith. They
are (1) science, reason, and experience; (2) God and the world; and (3) God’s
love and power. Each of these presents a peril for traditional Christian faith.
Background: Process theology begins with a particular philosophy—pro-
cess philosophy—before it says anything about God or God’s relationship to
the world. Whenever a particular kind of theology begins by adopting a par-
ticular philosophy, it must afterward develop in a manner that complies with
the underlying philosophy. The philosophical system will largely determine
how the theology engages all other topics. Systematizing one’s beliefs has the
benefit of ferreting out contradictions between Christian theology and an
underlying philosophy. When a theology relies upon a particular philosophy,
it might be required to embrace things that are contrary to traditional Chris-
tian faith. The commitments are necessary for making the system work.
 The promise of process theology comes from the way it organizes, in a
coherent and often convincing way, some basic intuitions many people have
about God and God’s relationship to the world. This is particularly true for
persons sympathetic to the Wesleyan theological tradition.
However, its peril arises because of what process philosophy requires
of process theology. Some of the requirements conflict with classical Chris-
tian faith but are necessary for process theology to maintain its coherence;
conformity with classical Christian faith would sacrifice conformity with
process philosophy.
Many Christians throughout history have worked to organize their be-
liefs so as to get rid of contradictions. But process theology takes a big step
further. It makes philosophical coherence (compliance with process philoso-
phy) the controlling norm for all its efforts. This is required by two assump-
tions process philosophy makes about the nature of the world and God’s
relationship to it: (1) the importance of science, and (2) and the idea that
God’s nature is closely tied to the nature of the world. These assumptions are
the sources for two of the three perils. We will explore them and then turn to
the third peril—God’s love and power.

Science, Reason, and Experience

British native Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) is the father of pro-
cess philosophy. His ideas about the nature of the world and its bearing on
the nature of God ground process philosophy. Originally a mathematician
and a physicist, Whitehead turned to philosophy as a way to understand the
monumental changes occurring in science during the first part of the twenti-
eth century. His thoughts about God flow out of how he tried to understand
the world.
Whitehead’s insights regarding God and the world were original. They
caught the attention of Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), son of an Episcopal
minister. He is usually credited with being the father of process theology.
Hartshorne was attracted to process philosophy precisely because it of-
fered a “reasonable” or philosophical way to deal with an inescapable intu-
ition he had about God, namely, that “God is love.”1 Like Whitehead, Hart­
shorne affirmed certain things about God because he believed certain things
about the world. The movement from our experience of the world to making
affirmations about God prepares us to see the difference between classical
Christian theology and what process theology says about God.
Traditional theology is deeply rooted in beliefs about God that the church
has affirmed throughout its history. Its present belief is grounded in, and jus-
tified by, what the church has historically confessed to be true. The church
affirms that Scripture (the canon) informs and governs its testimony about
God. Scripture is believed to be an unchanging source for truth regardless
of how cultures change or science progresses. The traditional Christian does
not expect to learn anything about God not already affirmed in the witness
of Moses, Jesus, and Paul, as affirmed in the major creeds, and interpreted
by people like Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and John Wesley. So strong is
his or her faith in the adequacy of Scripture that traditional Christians will
conclude that ideas about God that claim to be “new” cannot be “true.”
Further, if the Scriptures and tradition require beliefs that cannot be
fully understood or philosophically justified—such as the Trinity—then one
simply accepts these things as mysteries of the faith and does not worry that
they do not measure up to someone’s rational standard.
Process theology does not embrace the convictions just described. Pro-
cess theology—reliant upon process philosophy—presents a sustained cri-
tique of traditional Christian doctrine. Rooted in a scientific approach to the
world, process theology relies much more on the tools of reason and human
experience to make claims about God. It is untroubled by requirements to
justify its teaching by appeal to Scripture. Though one can find scriptural
quotations in the works of process thinkers such as Charles Hartshorne,
John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin, their theology does not proceed from a
careful examination of Scripture.2 For process theology it is sufficient to of-
fer good reasons for one’s beliefs that derive from science, reason, and our
experience of the world.
This is not to imply that traditional Christians do not care about science,
reason, and experience. But they do not allow any of these to function apart
from Scripture and tradition.
The foundations upon which process theology rest make it a natural the-
ology (grounded in the world) and not a revelatory theology (grounded in
revelation). A revelatory theology assumes that even though the world may
teach us some things about God, knowledge of God is not primarily and natu-
rally available in the world. Only through revelation can God be known most
truly. A natural theology, on the other hand, assumes that God’s nature is so
closely tied to the world that we can draw adequate conclusions about him by
carefully examining the world. This is why reason and experience carry such
weight in process thinking, and why Scripture plays such a minor role.
As with science, for process philosophy and theology it is far more im-
portant to have experimental or experiential verification for what one be-
lieves about God than to trust what people have believed in the past—even if
grounded in the Bible. So long as our belief passes the tests of observation and
experimentation, so long as they hang together by these criteria, they need not
be beholden to any other authority. Many of the more striking claims process
theology makes flow from this vision of what is acceptable as true.

God and the World

A second peril derives from another fundamental commitment process
thought requires: a close connection between the nature of God and the na-
ture of the world. In fact, God is so deeply intertwined with the world that he
can be understood only by observing the world. One of Charles Hartshorne’s
favorite analogies for the relationship between God and the world is that the
world is the body of God. Humans are more than bodies but cannot exist
without them. For process theology, God’s relationship to the world is much
the same. God has no being apart from the world. Originally, Hartshorne
accepted the label “pantheism” to name what his analogy describes. Later he
chose another term—“panentheism.” Rather than saying that everything is
God (“pan-theism”), Hartshorne claimed everything is in God (thus, “pan-
en-theism”). Still, God is radically immanent. God is part of the world and
does not really transcend it.3
Historic Christian theology rejects this. If God is truly “other” than the
world, as traditional theology affirms, then we will not gain our most impor-
tant knowledge of God from the world. We will know God as God makes
himself known—in revelation and ultimately in the incarnation.
If God is part of the world as Hartshorne claims, we can draw accu-
rate and adequate conclusions about him by carefully observing the world.
Knowledge of God doesn’t require other sources such as revelation and
Scripture.
Because for process theology, knowledge of God derives from our knowl-
edge of the world, God’s role in the process system is very different from
God’s role in traditional or classical theology. A traditional Christian who
believes that God is “other than the world,” that God freely created the world
and comes into it to save it from itself, is moved to worship God out of grati-
tude. He or she will praise God for who God is—the “One Beyond” or “Holy
One,” to use more traditional language. The God of traditional Christian
faith can judge the world, particularly how humans respond to God’s will.
The response for which this God calls is far different from that of a God who
is finally just part of a world that functions “naturally.”
For process theology, by contrast, God explains why things are as they
are in the world. God is a philosophical, explanatory principle that makes
the world much more comprehensible than does the “Holy One” of tradition-
al Christian faith. For Hartshorne, God is necessary for explaining why there
is order in the world and why things in the world have value. The process
God explains, justifies, and accepts this.
One can, of course, offer “praise” and “worship” to the “Originator of
Order and Value” spoken of by Hartshorne, but not because God has freely
done anything the world doesn’t naturally require of him. What God does,
the world requires. The process God is to be praised in recognition that God
has simply fulfilled his role in the scheme of things. God has done what is
“natural”—what nature requires.
But according to the Scriptures and classical Christian theology, God
freely creates and redeems the world because God wants to. God’s relation-
ship to the world is “voluntary.”
The process claim about God and the world shapes many other things
about God. The contrast with traditional theology is acute.
Most often, traditional theology has affirmed a close connection between
God and the world. But it is one that God takes on voluntarily. Traditional
theology claims that God created the world “out of nothing.” His nature is
never to be identified or equated with the nature of the world. It is “other
than the world.” The world is as it is because God freely chose to make it so.
In sharp contrast, for process theology, as soon as we understand God’s
nature is tied to the nature of the world—God is finally part of the world—
we see things could not have been any other way—either for God or for the
world.
Hartshorne, for example, explicitly denies the claim that creation was “out
of nothing.”4 Process theologians cannot imagine God without the world. The
two are so much a part of each other they cannot be envisioned apart.
This inseparable connection between God and the world is embedded
in the philosophical system upon which process theology builds. Whitehead
constructed a metaphysic—a view of ultimate reality. It systematized his
belief that everything is dynamic (processive) and relational. Everything—
including God—is in the process of becoming. Many find this view of the
world compelling and philosophically satisfying.

God’s Love and Power

Process theologians use process philosophy to create a rational expla-
nation of the Christian claim that “God is love.” Their explanation directly
challenges how traditional theology has understood God’s love—particu-
larly as it relates to God’s power.
 To understand why this is true we first need to understand two primary
organizing ideas or concepts of process philosophy.
1. Actual entities. Whitehead believed change is fundamental to the
universe. He thought of ultimate reality in a radically time-oriented way—
given that changes only seem to happen “in time.” He conceived of the basic
units or building blocks of reality as moments of existence in time rather than
as timeless, enduring substances. These moments, called “actual entities” or
“actual occasions,” are radically temporary—“drops” of existence. What we
perceive as enduring objects or persons are really a series of actual occasions
that follow each other in very rapid succession. Each moment is a new mo-
ment, and real change is possible at any transition between one actual occa-
sion and the one that follows.
Each of these moments also contains a degree of freedom, a bit of choice.
Of course, the level of choice for a collection of actual occasions that make
up a chair, and the level of choice a person displays are very different. But
at heart the same kind of freedom occurs in both. It is the freedom to be
something just a little bit different—to be novel—from what came before.
No actual occasion is completely determined by the ones that preceded it,
and so this means reality is always changing.
Reality doesn’t change completely from one moment to the next. The
book you are reading is still the same book it was when you picked it up.
And you have a sense that you are still the same person you were when you
performed that action. Though Whitehead wanted to talk about reality in
terms of change, he also needed to explain how things can stay the same.
2. Prehension. The second of Whitehead’s structuring ideas was how
actual occasions follow and relate to one another. Whitehead called the
relationship of each actual occasion to the preceding one a relationship of
“prehension.” Hartshorne claimed this was the most important insight into
reality anyone has ever had.5 Each new actual occasion is connected to its
immediate predecessor because it “remembers” that occasion and “feels”
what it felt. This “feeling of the feelings” of one “actual occasion” by its suc-
cessor means that although each “moment of being” is new, it is empatheti-
cally connected to all prior moments. The connection influences whatever
freedom the new actual occasion has.
Illustration: You experience pain. Pain is a signal of distress sent by a
group of cells in your body. The group of cells is what actually feels the
pain if you prick yourself with a pin. However, we do not simply get a re-
port from our cells that says, “The skin cells of the index finger of our right
hand are in distress.” Instead, our brain feels the feelings of those cells so
strongly that it owns their experience as an experience of the whole person.
We can say that we prehend the feelings of our cells so even though we are
more than those cells—can even exist without them—the feelings of those
specific cells shape our decisions and affect our whole person. The feelings
become part of who we are.
Apply the illustration. According to Whitehead and Hartshorne, all real-
ity results from—coheres—in process similar to what I have described. Your
skin cells are not the whole of you, but their experiences certainly form a
part of you. The you of the moment, when your brain registers pain, is not
quite the same you that existed before pain called. Similarly, because of the
influence of what you have read so far, the you that existed when you began
reading this chapter is not quite the same you that you are now. Through the
feeling of the feelings of the earlier you, you have a common, uniting identity
called “you.”
How does all this relate to love? Process theology describes “feeling the
feelings of another” as love. Prehension is just another way to speak of love.
Love is the thread that unites the intense interrelatedness of all things. We
love ourselves by identifying with the previous version of ourselves. God
loves the world in the same way; he prehends it. This is particularly true
when we recall that Hartshorne’s favorite analogy for the God-world rela-
tionship is that the world is the “body of God.”
Understood as the process of prehension, love is the fundamental prin-
ciple that holds all reality together. Traditional Christians have affirmed this
from the beginning: God is love. Process theology makes love make philo-
sophical sense.
But how does the process understanding of love and power create a peril
for traditional Christian faith? For adherents of process philosophy the pic-
ture of actual occasions prehending their predecessors is so coherent and
compelling it must be true. However, if the process vision of reality is cor-
rect, it has profound implications for how God engages the world, particu-
larly as it relates to the kind of power God exercises.
The first implication is that given the essential similarity between God’s
being and our own, there are certain things God cannot do. In traditional
theology, because God is Creator and “other than the world” (not part of it)
the world does not limit God’s power. God is, to use the traditional language,
“sovereign” over the world. He is ultimately in control. God is “omnipotent,”
meaning there is no power God does not possess.
But for process theology, God is one actual occasion among others and
the one who preserves (feels) the achieved value of all other actual occasions.
Think in terms of a single God-world system. Because the nature of the
world forms God’s nature, God’s existence—like our own—is a process of
prehending (feeling) previous moments, previous actual occasions. In fact,
God feels the feelings of every actual occasion in the universe at the moment
of its completion.
Now, if God is one with the world in a larger system of actual occasions
that are prehending (feeling) their predecessors in time, and if God is not
independent of the world, then the world will naturally and necessarily limit
God’s power. This happens much as the limitations of our bodies limit our
power. God is necessarily dependent on the world, so he is necessarily lim-
ited by it.
In one of his later writings, Charles Hartshorne calls the doctrine of
“omnipotence” a “theological mistake.” He says that the traditional Chris-
tian understanding of God’s omnipotence fails to recognize the radical in-
terdependence between God and the world. Every actual occasion in the
God-world system has a degree of freedom. It is the same as God’s freedom,
though to a lesser extent. God has some freedom to act, but his freedom is
naturally and necessarily limited by the freedom everything else enjoys. God
has power to influence the free choices of others, but no power to compel or
coerce them. To exercise coercive power would violate the freedom of others
and would undercut the very nature of reality. After all, God doesn’t exist
above the world; he and the world form a single reality.
Further, if God were to act coercively, he would act in an “unloving”
manner. In the process system, love—which as we have seen is synonymous
with prehending—and coercion are mutually exclusive. It is not just that
God doesn’t act forcefully, he can’t. The process system excludes it.
This is at odds with traditional Christian doctrine in which God’s love
and sovereignty, far from being mutually exclusive, are complementary. God
loves the world God freely created. God also freely accomplishes the aims
of his love. The world may oppose but has absolutely no veto power over
the achievement of God’s purposes. The Christian faith is founded upon
the conviction that in spite of all opposing powers, God powerfully fulfilled
his promises in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20;
Eph. 1:3-14). The New Testament is absolutely certain that in God’s own way
and time the Kingdom he inaugurated in Jesus will be consummated (1 Cor.
15:20-28).
 Conclusion
These, then, are primary commitments of a process worldview. Anyone
who commits to process theology embraces them. A process theologian must
be committed to a philosophical, natural, and scientific way of doing theol-
ogy. What one believes about God is built upon a reasoned analysis of one’s
experience of, and assumptions about, the world. A traditional understand-
ing of revelation plays no role. One must think of God as part of the same
system that runs the world. God’s connection to the world is natural and
necessary, not freely chosen. If, as the Bible consistently claims (e.g., Ps. 33:6;
148:5-6), God were voluntarily related to the world, if the world were radi-
cally dependent upon his will, then the world would not be a trustworthy
source for our statements about what the world must be like.
Finally, process theologians must be committed to a radically relational
view of reality and to the limitations upon God that come with it. A process
theologian must be willing to organize what he or she believes about God
and the world according to Whitehead’s philosophical system, not according
to revelation. This will include what has been said about “actual occasions”
and how they “prehend” their predecessors. It will include what we have said
about an actual occasion’s freedom and the limitations it places upon God’s
freedom. A process theologian must abandon any notion of God’s power
as forceful in any way, for God’s freedom cannot finally infringe upon the
world’s freedom.
For traditional Christians, the major commitments process theology re-
quires will be unacceptable. While there may be aspects of process theology
that sound similar to traditional Christian doctrine, the similarities will be
accounted for in ways radically different from what process theology offers.
 Chapter 3 Outline
Introduction

Naturalistic Theism

Process Theology

What Becomes of Revelation?

What Becomes of Scripture?

Conclusion
 3
What Becomes of Revelation
and the Scriptures?
John W. Wright

Introduction
This chapter examines the impact of process theology upon the Chris-
tian doctrines of revelation and Scripture. But before jumping into that dis-
cussion, we need to lay a foundation.
It is no secret that the modern era has witnessed a decline in the role
God plays in politics, education, law, and morality. Much of the current op-
position to the church’s participation in the public square would have at one
time been unthinkable. Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor tracks West-
ern culture’s loss of an awareness of God. He describes the process as a loss
of transcendence. Slowly, instead of seeing God as the primary source for the
world and human life, Western culture began to identify the world and time
as the primary location of meaning. Time (secular history), not God, has
provided the direction in which the Western world looks for what is most
real and important.
The meaningful and most real became immanent (located solely in the
world) rather than transcendent (located in God). Instead of history gaining
its meaning with reference to God, nature became the place for understand-
ing any meaning history might have. Driving all this was the belief that
what is most real—the world, life, God—can best be gained through human
reason and creativity, not through God. Once this knowledge was in our
grasp, it could be manipulated to bring about progress that is beneficial for
everyone.
Taylor concludes that “the modern idea of order has planted us deeply
and comprehensively in secular time.” By their own efforts, humans can now
claim to have established their own “providential social order.” That order,
supposedly, provides a blueprint for constructive action that can replace the
“matrix of purposive forces” it was once believed God had placed in nature.1
 I believe the philosophy Alfred North Whitehead developed in the 1920s
to 1930s, known as process philosophy, is a prime example of what Tay-
lor has described. In a radical redefinition of God contrary to the historic
Christian faith, process philosophy evidences the “loss of transcendence” in
Western society. It speaks the spirit of the age. Rather than championing the
God of classical Christian faith, process philosophy and theology promote a
“naturalistic theism.”2 The process God is arrived at by appeal to experience
within nature, not to revelation, the Scriptures, and the great tradition of the
church (the apostolic tradition). All that needs to be known about the pro-
cess God can be gained by closely observing planet Earth through critically
considered human experience.

Naturalistic Theism
What does “naturalistic theism” mean?
According to process philosophy, God is every bit as “natural” as the
“world.” God and the world comprise a common, natural realm in which all
is “becoming,” except God’s primordial (eternal or abstract) nature. For pro-
cess philosophy, God is “part of the furniture in the room.” True, God has an
“eternal” (primordial) potentiality not characteristic of the rest of the world.
And true, God uniquely provides purposes for the world. But finally, God is
just a different type of “enduring (continuing) object” among other “endur-
ing objects.” God is a special type of person among other persons. God func-
tions within and is finally constrained by the same system as galaxies, solar
systems, forests, rocks, caterpillars, puppies, and human beings.

Process Theology
Process theology developed on the foundations of process philosophy. It
is a form of modern theology that tries to correlate Christian tradition with a
given philosophical system—process philosophy. The German philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) tried something similar to this in his book Re-
ligion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793).
Basically, process theology develops independently of Christian tradi-
tion. First, its proponents set out to create what they see as a universal ratio-
nality to which all rational persons can subscribe. All the primary concepts
are derived from what process philosophy supports. Secondarily, process the-
ology seeks to translate a naturalistic theism (God constructed by appeal
to the world) into the doctrines and language of Christian faith. But there
are limits. The translation must not violate the content of the philosophical
system, even if this requires significantly altering some aspects of classical
Christian faith.
What is known about God by appealing to reason and experience can,
with profound and often hidden modifications, be expressed in the tradi-
tional language of Christian faith. Process theologians believe that as the
translation moves forward, the language of Christian tradition will enrich
what can be known by reason.
Given the way mainline Protestant Christianity embraced modernity, it
should not surprise us that in the 1960s many in mainline Protestant aca-
demic circles adopted process theology. It became institutionally embedded.
Taylor reminds us that the 1960s witnessed a profound moral shift in
North Atlantic culture.3 Ethics became “democratized.” This sprang from an
“ethic of authenticity.” Self-expression and freedom spelled “self-determina-
tion” and “self-gratification,” which became the central virtues. Freedom to
display one’s own values publicly became pivotal.
I think process theology offered a sophisticated way to legitimize and
advance the moral shift Taylor describes. Process philosophy went hand-in-
glove with mainline Protestantism’s attempt to retain its traditional social
importance, even while it was losing influence in a liberal culture now find-
ing its meaning elsewhere (in the world itself).
Evangelical theologians developed their versions of process theology
some twenty years later. Many evangelicals now wanted to influence the new
culture, particularly its elite. They saw process philosophy and theology as
an effective device for accomplishing this. Process theology would be a more
effective and respectful way to speak evangelical faith to the new order. Sup-
posedly, the traditional “narrow” and “peculiar” Christian language lodged
in their local congregations could not accomplish this.
Trained in evangelical seminaries in the 1970s and 1980s, many evan-
gelicals who would later embrace process theology went off to mainline Prot-
estant institutions where process theology was influential. Interestingly, the
trend was especially strong in some Methodist institutions where many Wes-
leyan students pursued, and continue to pursue, their doctorates.
The theology they learned often labeled itself “relational theology.” The
label masked the underlying (often modified) commitment to process phi-
losophy. Having subsequently become college and seminary professors, the
young doctoral graduates created process disciples. So, process philosophy
and theology provided a language seminary graduates could speak in the
new culture of self-sufficiency and self-determination. Supposedly, a culture
that now looked to the world for meaning would understand and receive a
God who could be explained within the confines of history.
For many evangelical scholars, process philosophy’s naturalistic theism
offered a way to participate in the newly formed secularized religious discus-
sion in academic circles. At the same time, process theology offered a way
to speak inside the church constituencies the theologians wanted to serve.
But first they had to run process philosophy through traditional Christian
language to make it palatable for parishioners.
Keep in mind the dual role—academic and church—of the evangelical
scholars who have bought into process theology. This will be necessary for
following our discussion of revelation and Scripture.
Process theologians, whether liberal or evangelical, claim their method
of appropriating philosophy and the language of various cultures for articu-
lating Christian doctrine has been used throughout Christian history. They
say they are merely advancing an intellectual enterprise in which the church
has regularly engaged. The Christian faith is well-served. They are correct
in that there is a long history of the church appropriating thought forms to
communicate the gospel.
But the claim process theologians make regarding their work fails at two
very important points: revelation and the Scriptures.

What Becomes of Revelation?

In the great tradition of the Christian church, revelation disciplines rea-
son. But the great tradition (apostolic Christian faith) regularly employs rea-
son in the service of faith. Reason isn’t annulled or abused. But revelation
always governs reason, not vice versa as in process theology. The church has
not merely proclaimed that God was fully present in Jesus Christ but has
claimed, with the Scriptures, that Jesus was simultaneously fully human
and fully God in one person. Jesus is the Salvation of the world, not just
one example among others of how God acts to redeem. The New Testament
and the great Christian tradition unambiguously affirm that Jesus Christ is
the “Unsubstitutable One” in whom we encounter God incarnate. In Jesus
of Nazareth, God definitively revealed himself and fulfilled his promises to
Israel. Only revelation—not reason and not the world—can produce and
substantiate this confession (Matt. 16:17).
Process philosophy doesn’t belong to the order of revelation. It derives
from analysis of what is confined to the world—to what we have called
immanence. It belongs to a continuum—a whole—that includes God and
the world. Within limits, it is true that examination of the world can aid
Christian faith. The problem with process philosophy is that it claims to
have provided an adequate account of God and the world without appealing
to revelation nature doesn’t already provide. Though fashionable in today’s
intellectual climate, what process philosophy says about God excludes genu-
ine transcendence, revelation, the testimony of the Scriptures, and the great
Christian tradition.
To the extent that the process God is “transcendent” (God’s primordial
and consequent natures), its content always collapses back into the world.
Finally, the process God does not—more correctly, cannot—rise above his-
tory and the world. History finally determines what God will be. There is no
place for or need of revelation that transcends the world and history.
At best, for process philosophy “revelation” would involve God offering
a prioritized list of God’s aims and purpose. It would also involve using our
past experiences as a provisional guide for anticipating God’s future goals.
But process philosophy has no place at all for a God who is quite “other” than
the world even while being actively present in it.
As noted earlier, process theology presents itself as a theistic naturalism
that stands between a materialistic or naturalistic understanding of the world
and supernaturalism (the world as dependent upon God in all respects).
Books that teach process theology usually begin with an introduction to
Whitehead’s philosophy. Then they move to a specific aspect of Christian
theology where they attempt to show how process philosophy helps articu-
late Christian doctrine for moderns.
Sometimes process philosophy is only implicitly present as process theo-
logians translate process concepts into language they say is faithful to the
Bible and Christian theology.
At other times the influence of process philosophy is not made clear for
the reader. The doctrine of revelation is a good illustration of this. Instead
of beginning with what the Bible and the great Christian tradition teach
about revelation and the incarnation, process theologians begin with what
process philosophy permits and then apply it to Christian doctrine. As a
result, process philosophy and process theologians effectively eliminate any
distinction between general or universal revelation (knowledge of God com-
municated through ordinary experience) and special revelation (knowledge
of God communicated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as under-
stood according to the Scriptures).4
Instead of universal revelation giving way to the primacy of special rev-
elation, for process philosophy the opposite happens.
 Nowhere is this reversal more clear than in the limitations process theol-
ogy places on both the incarnation and Jesus as the Redeemer (see chapter
5). In the process schema Jesus becomes one example—perhaps the best
or even an indispensable example—of what process philosophy sees as the
universal meaning of revelation.
As process theologians see it, if Christians will read their Bibles cor-
rectly, they will reach conclusions about Jesus that process philosophy has
gained through reason.5 What Christian tradition really reveals is the greater
truth of the emerging cosmos as described by process philosophy.
So, reason provides an accurate and controlling explanation of rev-
elation. If Christians choose, it can be stated in terms of “revelation made
known through faith.” But doing so is not necessary. Donna Bowman’s as-
sessment is correct. Process thought first defines God’s role in the matrix of
reality and then limits what can be said about God to God’s philosophically
assigned role.6

What Becomes of Scripture?

According to the great Christian tradition, the Old and New Testaments
uniquely, definitively, and authoritatively bear witness to the One God’s cre-
ative and redemptive act in and through Jesus Christ.
Not so for process theology. For it, the Bible is one illustration of how
God is active in all history—except for one important difference. The Bible is
a record of the many different kinds of divine messages received throughout
history. It is also a record of many different interpretations. This rich diver-
sity of divine proposals offered to the world gives the Bible its authority. The
Bible also contains a rich history of how diversely God’s aims for the world
can be interpreted.7 Because of the Bible’s rich diversity of revelation and
interpretation, process theology claims, it can serve as a guide for how to
receive and understand God’s aims in the future. As New Testament scholar
William Beardslee put it, Christians should take all biblical language seri-
ously and treat it as offering imaginative proposals.8
The process understanding of the Bible’s importance grossly misses why
the Scriptures are important for the church. The Bible’s importance doesn’t
lie in itself as a richly diverse collection of “proposals” God offers the world.
Instead, it is important for the church because it bears faithful witness to
the definitive, once-for-all work of God in Christ. Its importance resides in
Christ whose return in glory Christians await. The risen Christ who suffered
on the cross and who meets us in the breaking of the bread shapes how his
followers read Scripture and seek to understand him. Christ is the treasure
hidden in the field (Matt. 13:37)—in Scripture. Scripture is the treasury in
which we find him. It is not the treasure itself.
Process theologians correctly insist that we should take seriously the
history that lies behind a text before we can properly understand it. They are
correct that we must be alert to the distinction between the historical setting
of a text and how it has often been interpreted.
But they claim that to understand the Bible we must distinguish between
“absolute authority” and “freedom.” They say the Scriptures and Christian
tradition do not have absolute authority for deciding what Christian faith and
life should mean. Instead, process theologians say the “meaning” of Chris-
tian faith has to be worked out in a free interplay between the Scriptures,
Christian tradition, and our own exploration and determination of what
“Christian” means. When this happens, process theologians claim, we learn
that unlike what the Bible and Christian tradition teach, Jesus is an “incar-
nation” of God, not the incarnation of God. Jesus manifested in his life what
human life looks like when God’s will is fully embraced in each situation. In
important ways, Jesus reveals what God is like.
According to process theology, the interplay between “absolute author-
ity” and “freedom” regarding the Scriptures shows us Jesus’ significance; he
exemplifies the divine aim that “lures” history toward a goal A. N. White-
head and others discovered through philosophy.

Conclusion
So long as process philosophy and theology remain yoked to theistic
naturalism, it cannot adequately express the Christian doctrines of revela-
tion and therefore of Scripture. If process theology were not anchored there,
it would cease to be.
Process philosophy and theology radically redefine the meaning and
function of revelation and Scripture. They profoundly transform the great
Christian tradition.
For process theology, revelation no longer means that God utterly and
graciously overcomes the “infinite qualitative difference” between God and
creation in the singular event of incarnation. According to historic Christi-
anity, the Scriptures bear witness to the incarnation as the event in which
God made possible the justification of sinners and sanctification of believers.
But for process thought, revelation refers to God communicating God’s eter-
nal purpose (aim) within the confines of history. How could it be otherwise
when for process theology God has no real transcendence? God is part of the
God-world complex; first and finally look there.
 Within the closed and naturalistic process system, revelation becomes
a matter of God—part of the world—communicating how best to keep the
world’s future and God’s future endlessly moving toward achieving values
and enriching the world and God.
By contrast, for the historic faith once given to the saints, God is not
“part of the world” and the world is not its own source of meaning and
purpose. Its beginning, middle, and end come from outside itself—from the
transcendent and eternally triune God who was made known to us in Jesus
Christ.
Process theology empties revelation of God’s holy and ultimate claim
upon human beings. Once it has eliminated God’s real transcendence, real
revelation, and any real or holy distinction between God and creation, then
the events in the Bible—including Jesus—become mere examples (exem-
plars) of what all history has experienced and valued in its own revelatory
patterns. Instead of the Word made flesh (John 1:1-19), process theology
delivers a God made fully present through human activity and divine intent.
Finally, the faith once delivered to the saints has historically not begun
in some general notion of revelation, and then moved to the Bible and Jesus
Christ. Rather, it begins and ends with the person of Jesus Christ witnessed
to through the Scriptures. Christian faith is planted in this: “Christ died for
our sins according to the Scriptures, . . . He was buried, and . . . He rose
again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4, nkjv). Knowl-
edge of the God in whom Christians place their trust derives from the Word
of God: “by Him all things were created that are in heaven and . . . on earth,
visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16, nkjv), not from what reason, philosophy, or
the world can support.
This is the gospel by which we will be saved, if we remain in it.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Shipwrecks
on Cape Cod
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Shipwrecks on Cape Cod

the story of a few of the many hundred shipwrecks
which have occurred on Cape Cod

Author: Isaac M. Small

Release date: February 14, 2024 [eBook #72960]

Language: English

Original publication: Chatham, Mass: The Chatham Press Inc,

1928

Credits: Steve Mattern and the Online Distributed Proofreading

Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

SHIPWRECKS ON CAPE COD ***
 Transcriber’s Note
Larger versions of most illustrations may be seen by right-
clicking them and selecting an option to view them separately,
or by double-tapping and/or stretching them.
Additional notes will be found near the end of this ebook.
 ISAAC M. SMALL
WHO RESPECTFULLY DEDICATES THIS LITTLE
VOLUME
OF “SHIPWRECKS”
TO CAPE COD’S SUMMER VISITORS
Shipwrecks on Cape Cod
THE STORY OF A FEW OF THE
MANY HUNDRED SHIPWRECKS WHICH HAVE
OCCURRED ON CAPE COD

By ISAAC M. SMALL
FOR SIXTY YEARS MARINE REPORTING AGENT
FOR BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HIGHLANDS OF NORTH TRURO, MASSACHUSETTS
HIGHLAND LIGHT
MAY 1st, 1928

Reprinted 1967 By
THE CHATHAM PRESS INC.
CHATHAM, MASS.
 CONTENTS
PAGE
Author’s Preface 5
Loss of the Josephus 8
The Clara Bell 11
The Loss of the Ship Peruvian 14
The Bark Francis 18
Loss of the Giovanni 21
The Jason 24
Loss of the Steamship Portland 27
The Gift of the Sea 31
A Few of the Many Deep Sea Mysteries 34
The Monte Taber 35
Loss of the Oakland 37
Loss of the Castagnia 39
Thomas W. Lawson—the Largest Schooner 41
Loss of the Ship Asia 42
Barges Wadena and Fitzpatrick 43
Story of the Sloop Trumbull 46
Wreck of the Somerset—British Man of War 48
The Mystery of the Mary Celeste 50
The Self-Steered Craft 52
Tragedy of the Herbert Fuller 53
The Job Jackson Wreck 56
Loss of the Number 238 57
The Palmer Fleet 59
A Gale, and What it Did 61
Loss of the Montclair on Orleans Beach 63
Loss of the Reinhart at Race Point 65
Was it Murder? 67
Stranding of the Barges 69
The John Tracy Mystery 72
Wreck of the Roger Dicky 73
The Gettysburg Tow 75
Loss of the Elsia G. Silva 77
A Terrible Disaster 78
Terrible Submarine Disaster 80
Stranding of the Robert E. Lee 85
 PREFACE
I hardly know whether to call this a preface or part of the story, it
seems rather too long for the former and too short for a chapter of
the latter, but I may as well follow the general rule and call it a
preface.
Friends have often said to me, “Why don’t you write some stories
concerning shipwrecks which have occurred on Cape Cod?”
Perhaps one of the strongest reasons why I have not done so is
because, to describe all of the sad disasters which have come under
my observation during my more than half a century of service as
Marine Reporting Agent, at Highland Light, Cape Cod, would make a
book too bulky to be interesting, and a second reason has been the
difficulty of selecting such instances as would be of the greatest
interest to the general reader.
But out of the hundreds of shipwrecks which have become a part
of the folk lore and history of this storm beaten coast I have finally
decided to tell something of the circumstances connected with the
loss of life and property in a few of the more prominent cases.
The descriptions herein written are only just “unvarnished tales,”
couched in such language that even the children may understand,
and in order that there may be a clear understanding of how I came
to be in close touch with the events of which I write, it is perhaps
necessary to state briefly a few facts concerning my life work here.
So far back as 1853, the merchants of Boston, desiring to obtain
rapid and frequent reports concerning the movements of their ships
along the coast of Cape Cod, were instrumental in causing the
construction of a telegraph line from Boston to the end of Cape Cod,
and a station was established on the bluffs of the Cape at Highland
Light, this station was equipped with signal flags, books and a
powerful telescope, and an operator placed in charge, whose duty it
was to watch the sea from daybreak until sunset, and so far as
possible obtain the names of or a description of every passing ship.
This information was immediately transmitted over the wires to the
rooms of the Chamber of Commerce, where it was at once spread
upon their books for the information of their subscribers.
When the boys in blue were marching away to southern
battlefields at the beginning of the Civil War, in 1861, I began the
work of “Marine Reporting Agent,” and now on the threshold of 1928,
I am still watching the ships.
A fair sized volume might be written concerning the changes
which have taken place in fifty years, as to class of vessels and
methods of transportation, but that is not what I started to write
about.
My duties begin as soon as it is light enough to distinguish the
rig of a vessel two miles distant from the land, and my day’s work is
finished when the sun sinks below the western horizon. Every half
hour through every day of the year we stand ready to answer the call
at the Boston office, and report to them by telegraph every item of
marine intelligence which has come under our observation during the
previous half hour. With our telescope we can, in clear weather,
make out the names of vessels when four miles away. When a
shipwreck occurs, either at night or during the day, we are expected
to forward promptly to the city office every detail of the disaster. If the
few stories herein told serve to interest our friends who tarry with us
for a while in the summer, then the object of the writer will have been
attained.
 HIGHLAND LIGHT, NORTH TRURO
This is known as Cape Cod Light, more often spoken of as Highland Light. It
stands on a bluff 140 feet above sea level. The brick tower is 65 feet high. It was
built by the United States Government in 1777 and rebuilt in 1851. It is a revolving
flash light and its rays can be seen 45 miles at sea.
 LOSS OF THE JOSEPHUS
The first shipwreck of which I have any personal recollection was
that of the British ship “Josephus,” which occurred about the first of
April, 1849. The terrible circumstances attending the destruction of
this ship were so vividly impressed upon my childish mind, (I was
four years of age at the time) that they are as plain in memory as
though they had occurred but yesterday.
This vessel stranded during a dense fog, on the outer bar,
directly opposite the location of the present Highland Life Saving
Station, about one mile north of the Highland Lighthouse. She was a
full rigged ship from some port in England, bound to Boston, and
carried a cargo of iron bars. Losing her bearings during a protracted
fog and severe easterly gale her keel found the sand bar half a mile
from shore, immediately the huge waves swept her decks, and the
ship was doomed to destruction.
In those days no life savers patrolled the beach to lend a
rescuing hand and the first intimation of the disaster was when,
during a temporary rift in the fog the light keeper, from the cliffs,
discovered the stranded ship. The alarm quickly spread to all the
neighboring farm houses and to the village, from all directions men
came hurrying to the beach, hoping in some way to be able to aid
the suffering sailors on the wreck, which by this time was fast being
smashed to pieces by the thunderous waves which pounded upon
her partly submerged hull. Her masts had already been torn from her
decks and with tangled rigging and strips of sail thrashed her sides in
a constant fury. Many of her crew had been crushed to death and
their bodies swept into the boiling surf. When the spars went down
others could be seen clinging to such portions of the wreck as yet
remained above the angry waters, and their screams for help could
be heard above the wild roar of the awful surf, by the watchers on
the shore, utterly powerless to render the least assistance. At this
moment down the cliffs came running two young men, just home
from a fishing voyage. They had not even stopped to visit their
homes and families, but hearing of the wreck had hurried to the
beach. Lying on the sands of the shore was a fisherman’s dory, a
small boat, about twelve feet in length, such as small fishing vessels
use and carry on their decks.
These men were Daniel Cassidy and Jonathan Collins.
Immediately they seized this boat and ran it quickly over the sands to
the edge of the surf. The watchers on the beach stood aghast, and
when they realized that these men intended to launch this frail skiff
into that raging sea strong cries of protest arose from every one.
“Why, men,” they said, “you are crazy to do this, you cannot possibly
reach that ship, and your lives will pay the forfeit of your foolhardy
attempt.” But in the face of the earnest pleadings of their friends and
neighbors they pushed their boat into the gale-driven surf and
headed her towards the wreck. Their last words were, “We cannot
stand it longer to see those poor fellows being swept into the sea,
and we are going to try to reach them.” Standing with my mother and
holding by her hand on the cliffs overlooking the scene I saw the little
boat, with the two men pulling bravely at the oars. They had hardly
gone fifty yards from the shore when a great white cataract of foam
and rushing water was hurled towards them. The next instant it
buried men and boat under its sweeping torrent as it swept onward
towards the beach with the overturned dory riding its crest; two
human heads rose for a moment through the seething sea, only to
be covered by the next on-rushing wave, and they were seen no
more. Darkness soon settled over the terrible scene, the cries of the
despairing sailors grew fainter and ceased, while the mad waves
rushed unceasingly towards the shore. The watchers, believing that
every sailor had perished, turned away and sought their homes with
sad hearts. The light keeper, Mr. Hamilton, coming down from the
lighthouse tower at midnight, where he had been to attend to the
lamps, decided to visit the beach again, thinking possibly that some
of the bodies of the lost sailors might drift to shore. What was his
surprise to find upon a piece of the cabin of the ship, which had
washed ashore, a helpless sailor moaning piteously, still alive but
suffering terribly from the hardships he had endured; he had been
scratched and torn by the broken timbers through which he had been
washed and driven.
After great exertion and a long struggle the lightkeeper
succeeded in getting the unfortunate sailor up the cliff and to the
lighthouse, where the man was put to bed and a physician sent for.
He finally recovered, but he was the only man of that ship’s company
of 24 souls who escaped with life, these and the two men who
attempted a rescue made a total death list in this disaster of 25.
It is a far cry from 1849 to 1872, and the broken timbers of many
a lost ship, and the whitened bones of hundreds of dead sailors lie
buried in the drifting sands of this storm beaten coast, between those
dates, but as we cannot here present the details of more than a very
few of them, we only select those having especial and somewhat
different features and so pathetic as to stand out more prominently
than those of a lesser degree of horror, though it would be hard to
describe a shipwreck on this coast devoid of suffering, death and
destruction.
 THE CLARA BELL
On the afternoon of March 6th, 1872, a moderate wind was
blowing from the land across the sea, the sun shone full and clear, a
great fleet of sailing vessels, urged forward by the favoring breeze,
made rapid progress over the smooth sea towards their destination.
In the late afternoon, as the sun approached the western horizon, it
settled behind a dark and ominous cloud that was rising towards the
zenith and casting a dark shadow over all the sea.

WRECK OF THE CLARA BELL

The two masted schooner Clara Bell, Captain Amesbury, with a

cargo of coal for Boston, had that morning sailed out of the harbor of
Vineyard Haven and passed across the shoals of Vineyard Sound,
moved rapidly up the coast, and by ten o’clock that night was nearly
opposite Highland Light. The wind, which had been only fairly strong
up to this time, rapidly increased in velocity, and snow began falling
thick and fast.
The wind rapidly increased to a gale, when the vessel had
reached a point two miles north of Highland Light the wind suddenly
changed to north and in a short time became a howling gale; the fast
falling snow hid all the lights and the surrounding sea from view, and
the temperature dropped to zero. In trying to make an off shore tack
the vessel was struck by a huge wave, forced shoreward and with an
awful plunge the schooner struck a bar a fourth of a mile from shore.
It was now nearly midnight; the sea, though running fierce and wild,
had not at this time reached monstrous size, and Captain Amesbury,
thinking that his only hope for life depended upon getting away from
the schooner, decided to make an attempt to launch the ship’s boat.
After great exertion upon the part of himself and crew they
succeeded in getting the boat over the vessel’s side, and the crew of
six men and himself jumped in and cast off the line that held them to
the vessel, but not two strokes of the oars had been taken when the
cockleshell, borne like a chip on the top of an onrushing wave, was
thrown bottom up and her crew were struggling in the icy waters.
Captain Amesbury and one of his men were carried on a towering
wave rapidly towards the shore, but before they could gain a foothold
the remorseless undertow had drawn them back into the swirling
waters. With the next oncoming wave the sailor was thrown
shoreward again and succeeded in grasping a piece of wreckage
and by its aid managed to crawl away from the jaws of death; not so
fortunate the captain, who with the other members of his crew were
swept away in the freezing sea and seen no more. The sailor, finding
himself safe beyond the reach of the mad sea on the sand-swept
and desolate shore, started to find shelter. In his struggles to reach
the shore one of his boots had been torn off and lost, he was
coatless, without covering on his head, thoroughly drenched, his
clothes freezing to his benumbed body and limbs. In the blinding
snow storm which had now set in in dead earnest with a cold so
intense that it nearly took his breath away, this poor fellow started
out to find if possible some human habitation; he could make no
progress against the freezing gale so was obliged to turn towards the
south and follow the direction of the wind. Over frozen fields, through
brush and brambles that tore his bare foot at every step, over the
ever increasing snow drifts, through bogs and meadows and hills
and hollows, he struggled until the coming of daylight; then a farmer
going out to his stable in the early morning found this unfortunate,
frozen and exhausted sailor standing in the highway a short distance
from the Highland House, so dazed by his terrible night of torture
that he could not speak or move. He was carried into the farm house
and the writer was one of those who helped to revive him. We were
finally made to understand that he had come from a shipwreck on
the coast and that all of his shipmates were drowned. Leaving him to
the care of the women of the household I hurried with others to the
beach, believing it possible that even yet there might be some other
unfortunate still alive on the wreck.
After a somewhat exhausting trip over the drifted snow and the
frozen beach, we reached the stranded vessel, which had in the
meantime been driven by the huge seas completely over the sand
bar upon which she struck and the constant pounding of the waves
had driven her high and dry upon the main beach. We walked on
board dry footed and passed down the cabin stairs. There in the
cabin stove burned a nice cheerful fire and all was dry and warm.
The haste of Captain Amesbury and his crew to leave the strong
vessel for a little frail skiff had cost them their lives, and this has
been so often the case, it would seem that sailors so often exposed
to the dangers of the sea would realize when brought suddenly into
positions of extreme danger by the stranding of their ship, that their
only chance for life lay in staying by their vessel, rather than taking
the chances afforded by a small boat in the wild sea; if their large
and strong vessel cannot stand the shock certainly the little boat
cannot. Many men have gone down to their death in the sea
because of too great a faith in the ship’s boat.
The sailor who escaped with his life from this wreck finally
recovered after the amputation of three toes and a finger.
 People have sometimes said, “Are there no romances connected
with shipwrecks?” Fiction writers have often distorted the facts
sufficiently to be able to weave about the incidents of a shipwreck
some romantic story, but most of the disasters which overtake those
who go down to the sea in ships to do work on the great waters,
partake so much of the elements of tragedy that there is little room
for the entrance of romance into the situation. In almost every
instance where ships are overwhelmed by the storms and the seas
the cold hard facts are so distressing that every other feature, except
the one of suffering, is lost sight of and only the thought of drowning
men takes possession of the senses. The following story, though
bearing the color of romance, had a sad and heartbreaking ending.