​Did God create the world out of nothing? 

Maybe so, maybe not. Now let's get on
with the work of love.
​

John Cobb is a prominent figure in process theology, a theological perspective that draws heavily from the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Process theology generally emphasizes the relational, dynamic, and evolving nature of reality, including God's relationship with the world. Given this perspective, many process theologians challenge traditional theological ideas that depict God as unchanging and wholly transcendent. One such idea is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), which has been a cornerstone in classical Christian theology.

In Ask Dr. Cobb, provided below, a Mr. Foxwell asks John Cobb if, from his point of view, God created the world out of nothing. Here are some key points to take away from the provided text:

1. Rejection of Creation ex Nihilo: Process theologians, in general, find the idea of creation out of nothing to be problematic. Instead, they often emphasize a co-creative process where God and the world are in a dynamic relationship. They speak, along with the philosopher Whitehead, of a universe composed of cosmic epochs which precede or succeed one another, without an absolute beginning. God has always been "creating," they say, but never out of nothing. God has always been creating out of a preexisting chaos.
2. John Cobb's Openness: Cobb is more open to the idea than some of his process counterparts. Whitehead was unaware of big-bang thinking. He suggests that it's "possible" that God initiated the Big Bang, a singular event where there was nothing before. This openness suggests a willingness to engage with traditional theological concepts, even if he personally does not adopt them.
3. Whitehead's Influence: Cobb appeals to Whitehead's idea of a "primordial" divine decision that is uninfluenced by any other decision. This decision is seen as outside of time (nontemporal), suggesting a unique act of God. By potentially associating this with a datable event like the Big Bang, Cobb acknowledges that this idea could bridge the gap between process thought and traditional Christian teaching.
4. Caution with Creation ex Nihilo: Despite this openness, Cobb refrains from further developing the idea because of its historically "destructive" applications in Western history. The doctrine, when misused, can sometimes portray God as a distant, uninvolved deity, contrary to the relational God of process theology. It has two problems: it suggests that God has, or at least once had, the kind of power to prevent evil, and simply doesn't use it. And it lends itself to the idea that such power, unilateral not relational, is more "ultimate." Process theologians believe relational power more ultimate: that is, more important, more fundamental, and more loving.
5. Prioritizing Other Questions: For Cobb, the mechanics of how God created the world isn't as vital as understanding the purpose and nature of God, particularly as depicted in the teachings of Jesus. This prioritization shifts the focus from cosmological questions to more existential and relational ones.

In short, while John Cobb acknowledges the possibility of creation out of nothing and even sees potential intersections with Whitehead's philosophy, he doesn't emphasize it. He believes there are more pertinent theological questions to engage with, particularly those surrounding the nature and purpose of God as understood through Jesus.

​Did God Create the World
​out of Nothing?

​Ask John Cobb
​

​Question from Mr. Foxwell:
​
Did God create ex nihilo (out of nothing)?


John Cobb's Response

In traditional theology God may be recognized as active in the world at all times, but the word "creation" is usually reserved for a single act, the one in which the world is brought into being out of nothing. Mr. Foxwell presupposes this view and asks whether process thought rejects it. The answer is a qualified Yes.

The rejection is unqualified at one point. For process theology God is creatively at work at all times and places. God is continuously bringing new entities into being and calling them into novel self-actualization. To deny that this is true creation seems wrong to process theologians. We think the Bible is on our side.

The rejection is qualified in that contemporary scientific theories seem to a call for a "singularity" that initiates the only world about which we have any knowledge whatsoever. Whether this is strictly "out of nothing" is not clear, and I would judge that the answer is "probably not." But the event in which our universe arose certainly seems to be markedly different from all the subsequent events.

Whitehead knew nothing of the "Big Bang" and thought instead of cosmic epochs evolving out of earlier cosmic epochs with no singularities involved. Process theology followed him. Hence until recently, the answer would have been unqualified here, too. But process theology is committed to adapting itself to the most reliable scientific knowledge, and that means that it must adapt itself to the idea of the Big Bang.

Was God's act in the Big Bang radically different from God's act in the initiation of every subsequent event? We don't know, but we cannot exclude that possibility. Whitehead speaks of one divine decision untrammeled by the influence of any other decision. This decision he calls primordial, which means nontemporal. Today it may be that we will need to associate it quite directly with a datable event. That would seem to bring us closer to the tradition.

However, Mr. Foxwell implies that the difference between the two ways of thinking about God are more fundamental than this. That is correct. Even if we agree that God's act in initiating our universe was quite different from God's subsequent ways of acting, this will not, for us, change much of religious importance. We will continue to affirm that God is in the world and the world is in God. For Mr. Foxwell, on the other hand, the implication of the doctrine of creation is that God is quite external to the world and the world is quite external to God. For this reason the qualification of the rejection that I have introduced may not be very relevant to this discussion.

There can be no denial that much of the tradition is on the side of Mr. Foxwell. Nevertheless, process theology claims deep rootage in the religious sensibility of the Bible. The God in whom we live and move and have our being, the God whom Jesus called "Abba" seems better understood in the process way. If we affirm with orthodoxy that what Paul calls Christ is divine, then his insistence that Christ is in us and we are in Christ strongly supports the process view. That what happens in the world matters deeply to God is a continuing biblical theme.

From the perspective of process theology, the church has suffered from the exclusive emphasis on divine transcendence encouraged by the doctrine of ex nihilo. It has suffered from locating God in utterly unique acts instead of in the midst of the ordinary world. It has suffered from failing to affirm clearly God's genuine empathy will all the creatures. 

Process theology does not attempt to conceal its divergences from much of the dominant tradition in these respects. Of course, we also find many points of contact within it. And we believe that we can help to vivify elements in the biblical vision that have been obscured by the Hellenization of Christianity that has shaped so much of the tradition.

Why does it matter to people?

Four Reasons. 
​​

Love. First, the belief that God crafted the world from a state of nonexistence can mean that pure love is the singular force behind the inception of everything. This perspective offers comfort, suggesting that the very foundation of our existence is rooted in love and purpose.

Purpose. Second, embracing the idea that God is the originator of the universe means recognizing a potential for divine sovereignty over all creation. This belief underscores the possibility that there is a greater plan and order to the universe, even amidst chaos and unpredictability.

Rational Beginnings. Third, from a logical perspective, the concept of divine creation ex nihilo seems rational to many. The question of how the universe began and what catalyzed its birth has baffles people. The idea that an omnipotent being set everything into motion provides a comprehensible answer, suggesting that there was an initial, unilateral push or cause behind the vast expanse of the cosmos.

Redemption. Fourth, if one believes that God brought forth the world from nothing, it follows that God also possesses the power to guide its destiny. This means that, at the culmination of time, God can choose salvation for some (and perhaps for all), without requiring external collaboration. One way or another, life has a meaningful ending, because God is in control

Such beliefs resonate with individuals seeking answers to life's biggest questions, offering a framework of understanding that provides solace, purpose, and direction. This does not mean the four reasons ma sense to philosophers and theologians, or that all will agree with them. I don't. And it doesn't mean that believing in love, purpose, rational beginnings, and redemptive endings must be understood in terms of creation out of nothing.

But I can understand how well-meaning people, with convictions differ from my own, find these ideas important. This is why, for me, it is important for process theologians to be more sensitive to the possibility of creation out of nothing. And it is important to recognize, with Whitehead, that ideas are, in his words, "lures for feeling" not absolutes. How ideas function in people's lives is as important as whether or not they are "true." If believing in creation out of nothing helps a person become more compassion, live with purpose, make sense of the world, and trust that somehow, love has the final world (love wins), I'm not interested in arguing with them. I'm interested in saying, with John Cobb, "maybe so, maybe not, now let's get on what the work of love."

- Jay McDaniel