John E. Culp

Recent criticisms of theodicies express a conflict between theoretical and practical responses to the existence of evil. Theodicies, and defenses, seek to provide a resolution to the question of why there is evil if there is God. In providing an answer, theodicies offer an explanation for evil that responds to the existence of evil in a theoretical manner. In contrast to those theoretical responses, there have been a number of responses to the existence of evil that have emphasized acting against evil. These practical responses have stressed human actions to lessen the occurrence and impact of evil. Examining the criticisms of theodicies and the responses that have been made to those criticisms opens up the possibility of an interaction between theoretical and practical responses to evil. A survey of the changing understanding of divine omnipotence demonstrates the reciprocal interaction between theoretical and practical responses to evil leading to a more a comprehensive response to the existence of evil and God’s relationship to evil

Adding additional positions to the discussion between process and evangelical theologians may stimulate developments within each tradition. Postmodern philosophy relates to both evangelicals and process thinkers while differing with each of them. Comparing the thought of a representative from each group brings recognition of the agreement that absolute knowledge is not available to humans but significant differences arise about what is known about God. Comparison also shows a common identification of newness or novelty with God. However, disagreement arises about the nature of divine agency. Process theologians are challenged to draw upon the resources of process theology to show more clearly how God’s influence, as pervasive and continuing, supports hope. Evangelical theologians are challenged to relate divine and human action more consistently. Both evangelical and process theologians are encouraged to recognize the limitation of their own conceptual structures.

The absence of clear definitions for both “evangelical” and “process” theology opens the way for dialogue. The dialogue can be expanded beyond past dialogues and previous types of relationship. Two essays in this section propose creative conceptualities of God’s relationship to the world that seek to overcome limited evangelical and process understandings by drawing upon resources within each tradition. The other two essays suggest adding voices to the discussion that have not been heard clearly previously.

Adding additional positions to the discussion between process and evangelical theologians may stimulate developments within each tradition. Postmodern philosophy relates to both evangelicals and process thinkers while differing with each of them. Comparing the thought of a representative from each group brings recognition of the agreement that absolute knowledge is not available to humans but significant differences arise about what is known about God. Comparison also shows a common identification of newness or novelty with God. However, disagreement arises about the nature of divine agency. Process theologians are challenged to draw upon the resources of process theology to show more clearly how God’s influence, as pervasive and continuing, supports hope. Evangelical theologians are challenged to relate divine and human action more consistently. Both evangelical and process theologians are encouraged to recognize the limitation of their own conceptual structures.

The distinctiveness of panentheism will facilitate its future development. Further, having a clear distinctive can facilitate conversations among panentheists from diverse religious traditions by helping recognize concepts that are compatible or similar to aspects of panentheism. Finally, having a clear distinctive facilitates recognizing relations between positions that are similar to panentheism and explicit forms of panentheism. An examination of three claims about the distinctiveness of panentheism suggests that a mutual relation between God and the world aids in identifying the distinctiveness of panentheism. The nature of a mutual relation, evidence that a mutual relation is important to panentheism, and describing the benefits of recognizing a mutual relation support a mutual relation as distinctive of panentheism.

A mutual relation between God and the world provides a crucial distinction between panentheism and both classical theism and pantheism. Several proposals responding to Analytical Theology's challenge to distinguish panentheism from other forms of theism are considered and found inadequate. After defining mutual relation, conceptual evidence and the frequency of descriptions of panentheism that affirm a mutual relation between God and the world provide evidence that a mutual relation is crucial to distinguishing panentheism. Finally, benefits of recognizing a mutual relation between God and the world as crucial to panentheism are described.