​
​Is God Personal?

Reflections by John Cobb
​

To my knowledge, John Cobb always understood God as personal—not as an impersonal force or abstract principle, but as a subject who acts and is acted upon, who feels the feelings of all living beings, who responds with love, and who calls us into loving relationships with one another and the world. God is a "who" not a "what."

Three of the many sources he had for this belief are: the relational metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, which understands all actual entities—including God—as centers of experience; the life and teachings of Jesus, who revealed a God of compassion and presence; and Cobb’s own personal experience of divine love as a soldier in World War II.

These sources helped him see how belief in God can be joined with the best of science and the deepest moral and spiritual intuitions of humanity. The entire universe is filled with subjectivity and God is a subject in whose life all subjects unfold. For Cobb, as you see below, God is everywhere at once—not by having a localized body, but by being intimately present to the universe itself, which can be seen as God’s body.

​This page offers a sample of these three sources, offering a vision of God as deeply personal, persuasive, and woven into the very fabric of existence—a vision central to Cobb’s theology and legacy. If you would like to learn more about how Whitehead contributed to this understanding, see his essay Whitehead's Doctrine of God in Open Horizons. 

In the latter decades of his life, John Cobb began to speak of God as "Abba" - the very name by which Jesus addressed God. He felt that, for some, "Abba" or "Amma" might offer a better way of naming and feeling the tenderness of God, a tenderness by which he was himself touched while kneeling in prayer one night when he was very young. John Cobb realized that, for some but not all, the very word "God" is an obstacle to understanding the love of Abba. He never abandoned the word "God," but for him God was Abba.

- Jay McDaniel

​Touched by the Tenderness:
​
​John Cobb

"As a soldier in World War II, at one time, I was serving in the Pentagon and living in Washington. I was a pious youth and customarily knelt to pray by my bed before getting into it each night. One night, just after I knelt, I felt my context transformed. I heard nothing. I saw nothing. But I was surrounded and pervaded by a presence. In a way that I had not known to be possible before and have not experienced since, I felt totally loved, totally accepted, totally affirmed. I learned the meaning of “bliss.” The bliss lasted, probably, only a minute or two. Then faded. I can write with some detachment about God loving every creature. I believe that. But my experience of being loved was not just the realization of that. It was more, much more. And I still cannot really understand how the Spirit that loves everything can also make itself felt so intensely and profoundly in an individual case. I almost left it out here, as so often, because I am so deeply shaped by our “nothing but” culture that I am almost embarrassed to admit that I have experienced much “more,” and still can hardly believe it myself. Still, I am deeply, very deeply, grateful to Jesus’ Abba."

-- from Confessions
​

Confessions by John Cobb

​Is God Personal? 

A Reflection by John Cobb
​
Reprinted from Process and Faith (1998)

​

Is God Personal?

Dr. Cobb’s Response

The answer to this, as to so many questions is Yes and No, but on the whole Yes is a better answer than No. Of course, everything depends on what is meant by “personal”. For some people, the only way God can be personal is to be very much like a human being. In the extreme case this involves attributing a body to God that resembles a human body. Obviously, the answer must then be No. If we think of God having a body, that body is the universe as a whole.

More commonly, it is only the human mind or soul or spirit that God is understood to resemble. Then the answer depends on how the questioner understands the human spirit. Often it is understood substantialistically, with the relations among human spirits, and even between spirit and body, seen as quite external. When it is clear that the questioner is thinking in this way, it is still best to begin with the answer No. God is not like another human being, only greater, when one thinks of a human being in this way. But then, from a process perspective, other human beings are not like that either!

In somewhat more sophisticated imagery, questioners sometimes are asking whether the I-Thou relationship exists between us and God. Addressing God as Thou has been so central to the Abrahamic traditions that to rule out such language would mean a serious rupture. Process theology allows and affirms its use.

But the language of I-Thou suggests an over-againstness or externality that is inadequate and misleading. In Tillich’s terminology it seems to imply that God is one being alongside other beings. We need to claim the language but free it from this externalistic interpretation.

​Paul himself helps us to do so. He says of human beings that we are members one of another and jointly members of the body of Christ. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. The Holy Spirit is also found within. Process thought interprets this to mean that we participate in constituting the very being of one another and that the divine reality participates in constituting our being as we participate in constituting the divine reality. We are quite literally in God, and God is quite literally in us.

I-Thou language by itself does not capture this. But this is not because the relationship process thinkers affirm is less personal. The mutual immanence of all things only makes the personal character of relationships deeper, more inextricable. Process thought in this way enables us to appreciate the meaning of some of the language of the New Testament that has previously been toned down because of the metaphysical assumptions of interpreters.

Even so, this emphasis on the immanence of God seems to some to count against the idea of God as a personal being. In human interpersonal relations, we transcend one another as well as participating in one another. Does God transcend us? Of course. But is the way that God transcends us similar to the way other human persons transcend us?

No, there are differences. Other people are spatially separated from us. The locus from which they experience the world is different from the one from which we experience the world. But God is equally everywhere. Where we are, God is there, too. Or else, God as transcending creatures is “nowhere” in the sense that spatial language may not apply to God. In this way God is very different from another human person.

Nevertheless, God, like other human persons, is a subject who acts and is acted upon. In Whitehead’s terminology, God is an actual entity, distinct from all other actual entities. This does not make God any more like humans than like creatures in general. On the other hand, we suppose that some human characteristics, shared with some but by no means all other creatures, are shared by God. Consciousness is an important example.
​
As to how much further we should go in attributing human-like characteristics to God, process theologians divide. Charles Hartshorne encourages us to think of God as a closely unified succession of actual entities in which all the past ones are fully included in the present one. Since such a succession of actual entities is just what Whitehead defines as a “living person”, Hartshorne gives a clear positive answer to the question of whether God is a person.

​Whitehead, on the other hand, proposes that we think of God as a single everlasting actual entity. That is extremely different from any creature, including the human one. In his terminology, then, God is not a person. Yet much of what believers have in mind when they ask whether God is a person, is present in God for Whitehead as well.

​
​God as Abba

​

Excerpts from the Book, used with John Cobb's permission
​

Two Problems with "God" as Too Often Conceived

​​For me, God is of central importance to life and thought. As a boy I found that my conviction fitted comfortably with widely shared belief. I did not agree with everything I heard people say about God, but the problem with “God-language” was not much different fromother instances of disagreement and confusion.

Today the situation has changed. God remains of central importance for me. But I no longer find that belief to fit comfortably into my cultural context. On the contrary, many people are both skeptical that the word God has any reference and very uncertain what that reference would be like if it existed at all. In addition, the word now has a strongly negative connotation for many thoughtful and sensitive people, and I often find myself upset by how it is used. If the problem were simply linguistic, we could solve it easily.  Just use another term: Creator, Goddess, Great Spirit, Almighty, Yahweh. Using other names sometimes helps, but the problem is deeper. What has happened?
 
One problem is intellectual. From the outset of modernity, belief in the biblical God has been problematic. The biblical God is operative in both nature and history, whereas modernity, from its beginning, denied that God was a factor in what happened in the natural world. That is, it asserts that if you are trying to explain any natural event, you are not allowed to attribute any role to God.
 
At first, there was one exception. The world seemed so wonderfully ordered that it could not be thought of as coming into existence on its own or by chance. Most people assumed that it was created by an intelligent and powerful being, and did not hesitate to call that being “God.” Scientists found that the world was governed by laws, so that the Creator was also the Lawgiver. Some religious people thought that every now and again the God who created the laws intervened and caused something to happen that did not obey them. Thus there were supernaturalists, but the default position was “deism,” that is, the belief that God’s only relation to nature was the one act of creation and the imposing of natural laws.
 
At the same time, everyone assumed that human beings were not part of the nature from which God was excluded. Opinions differed on how God was related to human beings. The devout could picture the relation as quite intimate, but the dominant culture encouraged the idea that God had created human beings and had also given them rules to live by. Unlike plants and animals, people might choose not to obey these rules. After death those who violated them were punished, whereas those who obeyed them were rewarded.

Deistic thinking still continues, but it has far less support than in the earlier period. It was deeply shaken by Charles Darwin’s demonstration that the world we now know developed in a natural evolutionary way from a much simpler beginning. God was no longer needed to explain the remarkably complex and beautiful world we have around us; it could be explained by natural causes. Equally important was that human beings are fully part of this evolving nature. If God is excluded from playing any role in natural events, then God is excluded from playing any role in human events.  The default position now is atheism.

*

Credibility has not been the only problem we theists faced. For many people “God” has become an offensive idea because so many terrible things have been done by his followers. I grew up believing that God was always good and loving. I knew that human beings, even those who worshiped God, had done some very bad things, but I supposed that this was an aberration and that we Christians had repented and were seeking peace and justice everywhere.

However, along with many others, I came to see history differently. In the name of God, Christians had persecuted Jews for most of Christian history. This persecution had reached new heights in what we considered a Christian country, Germany. True, the Nazis were not Christians, but they could show the continuity of their anti-Jewish teachings and actions with statements of Christian leaders, and the opposition to Nazi anti-Judaism on the part of Christians was weak.

I learned that in the century-long theft of the New World from its inhabitants, many Christian missionaries had played embarrassing roles. I learned that, indeed, even the more recent missions to Africa and Asia had often supported colonial exploitation of the people. Even the better missions were often tainted with the sense of Western superiority, and with condescension toward those to whom they were witnessing. More generally, 

More generally, I learned that over the centuries the churches were usually allied with the rich and powerful. I learned that the enslavement of nonwhite races had been supported as God’s will. I discovered that earlier members of my own family had written pious Christian books in defense of slavery. Even many of those leaders to
whom we looked with admiration, such as Abraham Lincoln, had been racists. The Bible that seemed evidently to oppose such racism had been widely and successfully used to justify it. (John Cobb)

Rediscovering God through Jesus
​

​The purpose of this book is to propose that it is time for thoughtful Christians to free themselves from acquiescence to the late modern worldview. My conviction is that the biblical worldview in general, and the worldview of Jesus and Paul in particular, is superior. Of course, there are many respects in which their worldview is out of date. But bringing it up to date is much easier and more fruitful than trying to make the modern worldview adequate to our needs. We certainly have a great deal of knowledge about astronomy today that is far more accurate than the beliefs that prevailed in New Testament times. But adjusting to that information is no threat to the basic insights of Jesus or Paul.

We know now that the world is composed of quantum events, a view that is vastly different from ideas in the minds of any New Testament writer. But their worldview was basically one that gave primacy to events. That events characterize the world at microscopic levels is not an uncongenial idea, whereas the modern world is not able to assimilate it. And above all, the idea that events are both subjective and objective would pose no problem to the ancients, whereas the moderns have to deny it, conceal it, or treat it as an anomaly.I have focused on what is central for Jesus, the reality and purposes of Abba. I have wanted to show that belief in Abba makes a lot of sense today. 

Of course, I have not proved the existence of Abba;
indeed, it is not really possible to prove the existence of anything. I cannot prove that I exist, but we know much that we cannot prove. We cannot prove that there were any events before the present moment. How could we do so? 

But I for one do not doubt that many things have happened, and I doubt that you are seriously doubtful. Although we cannot prove anything, we can disprove a good many things. We can disprove the indivisibility of what we still call atoms, named when we thought they were indivisible. Science has disproved the astronomy generally accepted in New Testament times. It has disproved the idea that the world is just six thousand years old.

I believe we can disprove some beliefs about God as well. For example, the systematic implications of the belief that God is all-powerful and the belief that God is all-beneficent contradict each other, and their combination is incompatible with the historical facts. It is very sad when those who consider themselves followers of Jesus spend their time defending ideas that are indefensible and are not found in the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is another belief that is easily disproved. So is the idea that Jesus and Paul were supporters of what are today called “family values.”

The basic argument of this book is that, although many ideas associated with God and Christian faith have been disproved, Jesus’ teaching about Abba has not. On the contrary, it is coherent with our experience and responds well to the needs of the world in our day. It can be tested against personal experience. I commend it enthusiastically.

For my part, I strive to be a faithful disciple of Jesus. There are those who follow Jesus without sharing his belief in Abba. I admire them, but I am convinced that the effort to follow Jesus while ignoring his Abba has a tragic character. It usually results from being socialized into a culture and a way of thinking that is not deserving of commitment. I am convinced that a much deeper and more joyful faithfulness is possible if we seek to relate to Abba as Jesus did. I commend a faithfulness to Jesus that shares Jesus’ confidence in the love and empowering power of Abba.

"Abba cares much more about the future of the world than about who believes in him and who does not."
​

​But loving an omnipotent God, or a morally judgmental God, or an exclusivist God, or a God who demands sacrifice in order to forgive, can be harmful. Abba is none of those things. I believe that loving Abba is the best hope for the world’s future, and loving Abba means working with Abba....Abba cares much more about the future of the world than about who believes in him and who does not. We who love Abba will eagerly cooperate with those who do not, if they are working to save the world. But today we may rejoice that the leading voice in the movement to save the world comes from one who loves Abba: Pope Francis. It is my hope that my tiny effort to renew and strengthen the worship of Jesus’ Abba will also build support for the great work of Pope Francis. (John Cobb)

"Abba is always present in the world working for good."
​

​In sum, with regard to all that I have said thus far, I believe that we experience in some usually faint and fragmentary way Abba’s presence with us, working in all things for good. Abba’s work is most effective if we attend to it, open ourselves to it, align ourselves with it. This is part of the meaning of faith.  Our resulting thoughts  and actions sometimes have effects beyond our intentions. We can experience ourselves to be participating in Abba’s salvific work in the world. And we can sense the companionship of Abba as well as of others who work with Abba. We can know something of the divine commonwealth, the presence of which Jesus announced. (John Cobb)

"Abba is present even in the cells in our bodies."
​

​​I am repeatedly surprised by how rapidly wounds heal when the body is given the chance. Doctors often comment that their medicines do not heal us. They counter hostile forces in the body. When these are removed, nature works its healing power. When thought and emotions are healthy and supportive, the healing work of nature is speeded and strengthened.  For me, there is no “nature” from which Abba is absent. That does not identify God and nature. There is much in nature other than Abba. But I think that it is Abba’s presence in nature that makes for healing. I believe that Abba is in every cell in the body calling it to do its part for its own well-being and for the well-being of the whole

---

---