BOOK REVIEW:
The Divine Decision: A Process Doctrine of Election. By Donna Bowman. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. xii + 283 pp. ISBN: 0664224946. 

Donna Bowman brings together two unlikely theological conversation partners in an even more unexpected dialogue. The result is a stimulating, if somewhat complex investigation into what can arguably be found at the heart of the Reformed and Process theological traditions. As the subtitle states, Bowman seeks “to construct a doctrine of election utilizing the categories and concepts of process thought, based upon the interpretation of the Christian witness found in the Reformed tradition as exemplified and developed by Barth” (p. 4). On the surface, such a project would appear to be extremely unlikely (Reformed theology is traditionally all about divine causality, predestination and election and eschewing philosophical-metaphysical speculation whereas Process theology features a philosophical basis that grounds free will and eschews divine pre-determination). To her credit, Bowman not only demonstrates a keen awareness of the inherent difficulties in her project, she rigorously engages both Reformed (primarily Karl Barth) and Process (primarily Alfred North Whitehead) thinkers in prosecuting her argument. She skillfully and creatively carves out the necessary room to create an engaging, and at several places provocative, theological discussion.

Basically Bowman strives to retrieve a “kinder, gentler” version of the Reformed doctrine of election and incorporate it (she admits that this is something of a counterintuitive dogmatic endeavor) into her own “system” as a process theologian. Along the way familiar Reformed distinctives (God’s aseity and sovereignty, human inability, election’s a-temporal nature) fall by the way. Many in the Reformed camp will readily acknowledge inherent difficulties at these points and wish to move beyond Dordt’s 17^th century status of the discussion, although they may be more reticent to distance themselves to the degree Bowman does from divine sovereignty and its implications. Bowman’s reinterpretation fruitfully yields an important discussion of vocation, which has long been lacking from Reformed discussions of election, because of a pre-occupation with predestination. She also insists on the importance of history, which any Reformed understanding that takes seriously the Incarnation must attend to.

Bowman’s book is a lightly revised doctoral dissertation absent some, but by no means all, of the “dissertationalia.” In four chapters plus introduction and epilogue she treats 1) Barth’s doctrine of election (in brief conversation with process theology), 2) Whitehead’s notion of “Initial Aim,” 3) “convergence and divergence” between process thought and the doctrine of election, and 4) an actual doctrine of election from the perspective of process theology. There are both advantages and disadvantages to a revised doctoral dissertation, and in the end such a project needs to retain the scholarly pitch in order to prove her point to the rigorous reading she invites from specialists, theologians and serious graduate students. That is not to say that a non-specialist could not make his or her way through the dense content, for Bowman’s prose is remarkably clear given the mitigating circumstances of her subject matter. The first two chapters are worthwhile introductory studies in themselves, and will benefit those desiring concise summaries, especially chapter 2 (on Whitehead).

In considering the Reformed tradition, Bowman qualifies her choice of Barth as its best representative by comparing his doctrine of election to Calvin and Schleiermacher. Both of Barth’s predecessors are worthy of more nuance than she allows. Of particular consequence, I’m not sure her reading of Schleiermacher yielded sufficient appreciation for his understanding of causality. I think he is an additional conversation partner, for aspects of his thought appear to me to be more congenial to Whitehead and process thought than Barth’s. Bowman’s criticism of Schleiermacher on divine causality (cf. Christian Faith § 119.1) “if human freedom cannot be exercised with regard to grace, as for example when a person dies before hearing the gospel, Schleiermacher must unhappily conclude that this is also God’s will” (p. 127) is actually addressed by Schleiermacher himself in § 119.2ff and more fully in §§ 120 and 159. For Schleiermacher there is only “one eternal and universal decree” (§ 119.3) and no reprobation (Schleiermacher’s method, which eschews speculation, necessitates that he stop short of asserting universal salvation; but he gives every possible implication by arguing against permanent exclusion for those who die having not yet responded to the gospel (CF §§ 118-120).

On balance this is a well-written, carefully wrought argument that stems from a plausible, responsible reading of the two primary representatives (Barth and Whitehead), although I admit a lack of expertise in process thought and confess I read her work through the lens of a Reformed theologian. At the end of the day I am less than fully convinced that it is possible to connect Whitehead’s God—who/that limits possibilities in a primordial “initial aim” that enables God to “lure” creation toward increasingly greater value—with the God of Barth, Schleiermacher and Calvin—who decrees salvation and elects women and men in Jesus Christ amidst human impotence. In the end I am also skeptical about an enterprise that treats two vastly different approaches to theological thinking as if were possible to “plug and play” the doctrinal concerns from one into the other. I do not think it possible to export the doctrine of election, from Barth or any other Reformed theologian, apart from the doctrine of the God who does the electing.

If in the end I am not able to follow Bowman to the conclusion of her project, I am nevertheless appreciative of some of the fruit gleaned along the way. For presumably I am one of the reasons why she published her book, to stimulate thinking and reflection; even more so has she written for fellow Process theologians. She has definitely succeeded in that and I am grateful for her scholarship and her rigorous contribution to serious theological discussion. 

E. Quinn Fox
Minister of Adult Education
First Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO

PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE FOR REFORMED THEOLOGY, SPRING 2006, VOL. 6, #1.