California Personalism and God as First Among Equals

 Yes, it was once a thing, and no, it does not involve Hugh Hefner:

George Holmes Howison taught a metaphysical theory called California personalism, maintaining that both impersonal monism and materialism run contrary to the moral freedom experienced by persons. To deny the freedom to pursue the ideals of truth, beauty, and love is to undermine every profound human venture, including science, morality, and philosophy.... 

Howison created a radically democratic notion of personal idealism that extended all the way to God, who was no more the ultimate monarch, no longer the only ruler and creator of the universe, but the ultimate democrat in eternal relation to other eternal persons.

According to my pal Gemini, Howison's philosophy emphasizes the fundamental reality of persons, and the idea that reality itself is ultimately composed of a community of free and eternal persons:

• A core tenet of his philosophy is the existence of an eternal and uncreated community of persons, including God, rather than a single, absolute being.
• Howison stressed the autonomy and freedom of each person. He believed that individuals are fundamentally free moral agents. 

But unfortunately, he "found few disciples among the religious, for whom his thought was heretical; the non-religious, on the other hand, considered his proposals too religious" (wiki).

What's a little heresy between friends?

Agreed. If it's heretical to believe God is an "uncreated community of persons," that humans are "fundamentally free moral agents," and that God doesn't unilaterally determine all aspects of reality, then durn it, I'm a heretical California personalist.

Wait. It gets more heretical:

In some interpretations of Howison, God is seen as a "first among equals" within this eternal community. This implies a relational and participatory role for God, rather than one of absolute sovereignty.

Three words:

Far out, because California personalism comes close to the Christian dudism we preach. Except a Christian dudist is never actually preachy. That's a very undude behavior to engage in. Nor do we hold God directly responsible for every strike or gutter, for our God doesn't roll that way. 

But first among equals? That may be a bridge too far. Then again, think about how scripture was said to be written via a co-operation of human and divine authorship. God gets his points across, but leaves plenty of space for the human contributor's style, language, perspective, experience, and historical and cultural contexts. 

Likewise, Jesus is one person with two natures. There is equal emphasis on both -- i.e., truly human and truly God. Still, you'd have to say that the divine side must be first among equals.

Or the Trinity: surely the Father is first among equals. He is the source or fount of the Trinity, except there never was a time that the Son and Spirit didn't co-abide with and in him. 

But I'll have to think through this "first among equals" business, because it is indeed pretty far out, even for California. Meanwhile we have some questions from a commenter, first, 

Could God not have set parameters regarding freedom to "choose" evil? It seems to me that it would not obstruct anyone's freedom of will to make children "off limits" to harmful "free will" actions -- couldn't He have (in actuality) assigned Guardian Angels to the task of protecting the most innocent of our little ones?

Excellent questions. First, God does apparently assign us guardian angels, and who knows how many evils they prevent, since we never see them? When I think of the bad things that could have befallen me between the ages of 17 and 25 -- Bob's wild years -- the mind reels. 

And Jesus does, of course, warn of rough justice for those who harm children, such that it would be better for them to have millstones hung from their necks and tossed into the sea. But couldn't God have pre-progammed us to not harm children to begin with?

I suspect he did, or no child would survive infancy. After all, it's quite a chore to care for a helpless and functionally useless baby, but -- as explained in the book -- it is precisely our neurological incompleteness or "premature birth" that creates the "space" for humanness to develop. This unique situation allows us to mature in an interpersonal context, thus facilitating our intersubjectivity. 

Coincidentally, I was reading in the book Dominion of how barbarously children were treated in the ancient world, prior to any Christian influence (Jews excepted, who also didn't abuse or murder their children).

I've returned the book to the library, so I can't quote the exact passage, but suffice it to say that the Romans routinely practiced infanticide, leaving unwanted infants (especially girls) to die by the side of the road. There was simply no concept of the sanctity of life, least of all for the weakest among us. This only changed with the gradual influence of Christianity. The wiki article says that

Exposure was extremely widespread and deemed morally acceptable in ancient Rome, especially regarding female children, and "more than one daughter was practically never reared" even in large families. 

But "As Christianity gained a foothold in the Roman empire, Christians became known for rescuing exposed infants and raising them." So, in response to the question, Christianity indeed brought with it more humane childrearing practices through a "divine-human" partnership that still respected our potential to do evil. 

I know that's not a completely satisfactory answer, but I don't know that there is one. Or at any rate, we're still working on it.

Next question, this having to do with the consequences of evil acts:

Some of the most heinous acts of evil are done by those who are utterly insane. Now, insanity being an affliction (an illness even) rather than a choice, the question arises, do the insane truly have freedom of will?

No, they do not. In order for someone to be guilty of an evil act, the person must have sufficient knowledge of the act's evil nature and must perform it freely. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance, and there are forms of mental illness that weaken or entirely eliminate a person's free will.

Having said that, I do wonder about the existence of genetically determined mental illnesses. They say psychopathy is roughly 50% heritable, which still leaves a lot of room for environmental influences. But it certainly seems unfair for so many people to be born with a propensity to depression, anxiety, neuroticism, and psychopathy.

Then again, nature is neither fair nor unfair. It just is. Being prone to depression myself, it must have an upside, or it wouldn't have survived the rigors of natural selection. Gemini, what could be some of the evolutionary benefits of a vulnerability to depression?

Analytical Rumination Hypothesis: 

This theory suggests that depression, or at least the rumination aspect of it, may have evolved to facilitate complex problem-solving. By withdrawing and focusing intensely on a problem, an individual might be better able to analyze it and find a solution. 

In ancestral environments, this could have been valuable for dealing with complex social or survival challenges. 

There are other theories, but it seems commonsensical that there is a correlation between shallowness and an absence of psychological pain. Certainly it has made me a more empathic person. And here I am ruminating about the complex problem of evil and suffering. 

I think our lesson for today is that God's rescue mission, AKA salvation history, works with our freedom and our nature to attain the intended outcome. Yes, it may work more slowly than we'd like it to, but compared to what? 

I guess we're done this morning, even if we're not done ruminatin'. Much more to come....