I am currently reading Alfred Whitehead’s Religion in the Making for an online reading group. The book consist of four lectures delivered at Harvard in 1926. Whitehead describes the purpose of the lectures:
The aim of the lectures was to give a concise analysis of the various factors in human nature which go to form a religion, to exhibit the inevitable transformation of religion with the transformation of knowledge, and more especially to direct attention to the foundation of religion on our apprehension of those permanent elements by reason of which there is a stable order in the world, permanent elements apart from which there could be no changing world. (Whitehead p2)
Whitehead is considered the first to illuminate the systematic ideas of Process Philosophy and Process Theology. The lectures comprising Religion in the Making were presented three years before his seminal work Process and Reality the ideas of process thought are present. Considering my small but diverse subscriber base I assume many may have never heard of Whitehead or Process Theology and Philosophy. others may have heard Process mentioned as a danger, and a few of you may have a working knowledge of Whitehead. There is an even smaller number of readers who know Whitehead as well as one might know a philosopher’s work. In the realm of Whitehead I have dipped my toes in the shallow end of the pool, but the ideas of Whitehead heavily influence my own Open and Relational Theology influences.
All that to say that I may lose some, I may spark some interest, and I might even embarrass myself, but I have a few ideas about the current expression of the church in broad terms. The thoughts in this essay were sparked upon reading the first lecture of Religion in the Making. This section deals with the idea of religion’s process and evolution as human beings became able to stop long enough to think rather than run, fight, eat, etc. That is a very simplistic summary, but sufficient for our discussion here.
In the opening section of lecture one, Whitehead makes the observation that
Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity. A religion, on its doctrinal side, can thus be defined as a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended. (ibid p6)
Later Whitehead is explaining the way religion comes to be in progressing from primitive myth and ritual into more formalized thought through ritual. Here Whitehead speaks of the differences between what we call religion and what we call magic.
Accordingly, the belief in the myth will involve the belief that something is to be averted in respect to the evil to be feared from him or it. Thus incarnation, prayer, praise, and ritual absorption of the hero deity emerge. If the hero be a person, we call the ritual, with its myth, “religion”; if the hero be a thing, we call it “magic.” In religion we induce, in magic we compel. The important difference between magic and religion is that magic is unprogressive and religion sometimes is progressive; except in so far as science can be traced back to the progress of magic. (ibid p12)
The combination of these passages created an “aha” moment for me. This led to some thoughts. The first thought is that Whitehead’s thoughts on religion being connected to cleaning “inward parts” and that doctrine leads to transformed character sound familiar for this Wesleyan-Holiness guy. But the idea that character is developed according to faith seems very apt in today’s Church. This idea gives me a foundational understanding of the ideas I have been working out in recent essays. My struggle continues to be the character of those claiming to follow Jesus, yet not looking very much like Jesus. Well, Whitehead gives me some clues as to why I see a disconnect. Maybe the faith being expressed is in something other than the Jesus as revealed in scripture and the witness of the Church.
When the two passages come together, then I get a more full picture of an idea. You see if doctrine forms our character, then our praxis (practices) show the nature of that character as well as the character of our faith. The ideas of magic compelling while religion induces resonates and becomes for me the way that the character of faith is expressed. I have determined that the disconnects I am experiencing are not between different experiences of Christianity the religion. instead the disconnects are between the religion of Christianity and magic with Christian labels and terminology.
If we accept that religion induces, we get a picture of relationship. If religion induces, it creates freedom, it invites and persuades. Religion woos, it creates devotion through sacrifice, prayer, rituals in formation. This is a picture of a non-coercive relationship between the human and the divine. An inducing relationship progresses and changes as the relationship deepens. Christins can see this in Paul’s speaking of having the mind of Christ or in Jesus saying to be holy as God is holy. There is a becoming and a relational deepening.
Contrast that with magic that compels. Within this idea specific words, phrases, and rituals become the way to compel deity to act. Magic is not relational, but action on and with things. I believe there is a drift into magic for those who are religious. My observation is that two extremes in Christianity (as an example in my experience) tend to practice magic rather than religion. The first extreme is fundamentalism. This might seem ironic as fundamentalists call many practices and rituals magic when practiced within religion. But, the way that fundamentalists practice magic rather than religion in through making things the “heroes.” Idolatry is a funny thing because we miss the point of idolatry. Fundamentalists see things like scripture, certitude, and specific phrases as heroes. Believing that scripture is inerrant and authoritative in and of itself is objectifying the revelation meant to point to the divine. Magic compels deity to act by invoking the right phrases, correct beliefs, and proper spellbooks.
Fundamentalism compels deity by saying phrases for salvation, believing the correct things, and holding to scripture’s authority in the words rather than the one revealed in the words. Staying on this side of the extreme, Prosperity Gospel is similar as it seats power in words and ohrases much like incantations. There really is not much difference between “wingardium leviosa*” and “I bind the spirit of poverty and loose the spirit of abundance.” Both are compelling incantations and both are magic.
But magic extends elsewhere as well. Liberal Christianity** can also descend into magic. This happens when the central person as “hero” gets relegated to simple idea or reduced to historical literature. If Christology is nonexistent or weak, then things become central and magic compels them. Liberal Christianity can avoid becoming magic by investing in robust Christology. For a good introduction to liberal Christology, I recommend Dr. Tripp Fuller’s Divine Self Investment.
I believe that this idea religion versus magic may be a key part of why Dr. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop made a bold claim on her preface to the second edition of her opus A Theology of Love.
“Process Theology” makes a much-needed correction to the dualisms of a former day. It is my considered opinion that, though the metaphysical foundation of process thought is not the only solution to theological problems, its insights are inescapable in a biblical theology. The dynamic emphasis in relation to God, [humanity], love, grace, nature, and salvation and interpersonal relations is crucial to the Christian faith. (Wynkoop loc. 166)
Process Theology makes a correction by keeping us out of the certitude and static nature of magic. You see magic is the same every time as long as you say the right words, flick your wrist just right, or recite the proper scripture sequence. Magic is decidedly unprogressive, while religion is progressive by nature. For we Nazarenes, even Dr. Richard S. Taylor understood religion and scripture as progressive.
[B]iblical authority is also qualified by the principle of progressive revelation. “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1–2, NASB). (Taylor loc. 743)
Wynkoop claims that John Wesley had an underlying dynamic metaphysic. (Wynkoop loc. 166) While Wesley ‘s metaphysic is grounded in experience and practical pastoral work rather than pure philosophy, I believe it sells Wesley short to consider this totally practical. Wesley’s prevenient grace is a glue that holds his metaphysic together and forms the foundation of a process oriented religion rather than an object oriented magic.
Connecting all of this leads me to some thoughts that are peculiar to the Church of the Nazarene. Our doctrines and polity are fleshed out in democratic deliberation within our Manual. This is broken down into our core doctrines as stated in sixteen articles of faith, our agreed statement of belief, a covenant of Christian Character, and the governing structure. In fact, the preamble to those sections ends with the statement which describes this section as “the fundamental law or Constitution of the Church of the Nazarene the Articles of Faith, the Covenant of Christian Character, and the Articles of Organization and Government here following” (Manual p 26)
Following this section, we have the Covenant of Christian Conduct which has been highly cultural and able to be amended with a simple majority. This section lays out the marks of character for those who call themselves Nazarene. Think of this section as the character developed through the work of religion in the preceding section. The doctrine forms us such that in our cultural moment, this is how you can recognize a Nazarene. This section contains everything from our claim to social justice, our beliefs on human sexuality, creation care, and the fact that our meetings should be conducted via Robert’s Rules of Order.
Reading Wynkoop, thinking on Whitehead, and looking at our Manual, I am even more convinced that our Board of General Superintendents (BGS) made a theological, doctrinal and practical error when they labelled the Covenant of Christian Conduct as “essential doctrine” like the section preceding it. The General Assembly (GA) rejected a resolution to make this idea formal doctrine, but rulings from the BGS becomes “law” in perpetuity so the GA actions are moot. But beyond that, the idea that the things that should be marks of the character created through doctrine confuses the action of that doctrine. It both cheapens doctrine and makes the character appear more like magic.
By making marks of transformation into doctrine we decrease the force of transformation. That ruling did make magic as it led to an easier defrocking of dissenting clergy. The reason I see this as magic is because there is widespread disagreement by clergy on some ideas within the Covenant of Christian Conduct. Plus making conduct doctrine blurs the lines into magic thinking. Clergy will argue with the idea of rejecting “exclusive nationalism,” working for more “equitable societies,” and I imagine struggle with the proper parliamentary use of Robert’s Rules. But are those really arguments over doctrine, or are they arguments over the evidence of a lived out doctrine?
Turning a highly relational concept like religion into an impersonal and compelled magic is exactly why Wynkoop believed that Process Theology was critical for biblical theology. At least that is how I have come to understand what Wynkoop meant by including that thought in her second edition preface. Magic religion is full of what Wynkoop called credibility gaps because it seeks to distill relationship into right thinking. We are not sanctified by some magic incantation, but by the renewing of our minds in relationship with Christ.
If the Bible, the Manual, correct phrases, or any other concept become central, our religion quickly becomes magic. But if we keep the crucified first century Jewish Rabbi at the center of religion it blossoms into the beauty of relational truth and transforming power.
* Levitating spell from Harry Potter
** as classically defined
Manual Blevins, Dean G, et al. Copyright 2023 by Nazarene Publishing House.
Taylor, Richard S. Biblical Authority and Christian Faith. Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1980.
Whitehead, Alfred. Religion in the Making. 1926, 2023 Kindle Edition.
Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, Second Edition. Nazarene Publishing House, 2015. Kindle Edition.