Toward a Dynamic, Relational Judaism

In evaluating Process Thought as "a speculative philosophy worthy of our engagement," Rabbi Artson joins a cadre of Jewish thinkers who, over the last several generations, have found process philosophy to be a sound philosophical framework on which to construct modern Jewish thought.¹ Artson beautifully draws out the vibrant possibilities that such engagement might yield. "God is found in the steady relational love that invites creation into diverse becoming" (Artson, p. 22 above)—in one elegant brushstroke, Artson illustrates his main theme: that in Process Theology Judaism can find affirmation of its central theological intuitions and a way to coordinate them with important cosmological insights.

Artson is drawn to those aspects of Process Philosophy that redress the influence of Greek philosophy on the development of Jewish thought and he makes a cogent case for moving beyond the Greek philosophical and theological limitations once accepted by the great Jewish medievalists. To speak of God as involved in "relational love" and "diverse becoming" depends on this. So, too, does the effort to speak meaningfully of covenant.

What Artson makes clear is that the theological integrity of Judaism as a covenantal tradition requires a reconsideration of the dominant model of divine power. The notion of omnipotence destroys relationality and leads directly to the problem of evil. It thus makes covenantal theology an untenable proposition, except for those who can sustain their convictions in the face of unresolved paradox. Here is the heart of the matter: in the Jewish tradition, it is God's love that arouses loyalty and faithfulness, not God's power. Both the notions of divine omnipotence and divine impassibility severely undercut any meaningful talk about covenant, as covenant requires freedom, power, and care on the part of both partners, asymmetrical though the relationship may be. One of the principle reasons why Process Theology is of such value to Jewish thought is because it carefully deconstructs the notion of omnipotence and equally carefully constructs the notion of divine concern.

Importantly, Artson argues that the idea of an omnipotent god is unbiblical and untalmudic. In those sources, God is incomprehensibly powerful but not all-powerful. Other creatures, particularly human beings, are treated as having what Process Philosophy considers the threefold powers of being: to act on others (including God); to be responsive to others (including God); and to be self-creating. Indeed, the drama of the Hebrew Bible is the suspense and uncertainty over whether the Israelites will be appropriately responsive to God's overtures. Up to and including the moment of matan torah, the narrative is thick with anticipation. Will the Israelites accept the Torah? Will they realize what they have been given? Will they reorient their lives with God at the center? God is mighty, but nonetheless vulnerable to the small powers that animate individual lives. The significance of this can hardly be overstated. Though God is able to act supernaturally—parting waters, bringing plagues, supplying manna, etc.—in relationship to human beings, God's supernatural powers neither include nor necessitate omnipotence. God is not the singular cause of human events, but awaits the decisions of the individual, made in relation to but not compelled by God. This is not to say that people don't fear God's response to their decisions; after all, God's power so exceeds that of any other being that it can be felt as overwhelming. (Process theologian David Griffin uses the language "most powerful" to describe God.) But this emotional reaction itself stands as evidence of the human power to be responsive; being overwhelmed is a response given by an active subject. Responsiveness requires a decision to be open to God's presence and to engage with it. It is not the same as being compelled—and that is a difference that makes great theological difference. In the case of Judaism, it is the ontological ground for covenantal partnership.

With Hans Jonas, process thinkers maintain that omnipotence is a logical error. As a relational term, power requires two or more subjects, each with some degree of power; if omnipotence is a relationship of something to nothing, then...