The Bridge
A roped bridge spanning a deep chasm gave way,
Five lives were lost - "Was this the will of God?"
Or, "Cost of ravaged time on fraying hemp-thread?"
Asked the friar as his parish shook their saged heads.
The burdened friar searched the pasts of each
Fallen victim for proof or plan that might show
God's justice within each life of fey unfortunate;
How their days were traced, their cares laid bare,
Though no divine pattern could hold them there.
Yet in the failing of the aged, neglected span,
A silence deeper than death's deadly chasm rang,
Hurtling downwards upon a friar's pained heart,
Whether fate, or wrath, or heavenly design,
To echo within sudden tragedy's gaping maw....
And as he looked and prayed he startled found,
Love had shaped each victim's meager course,
As breath gave way there loved remained,
Not nakedly nailed to heaven’s door, but in
Determined assent woven within the core.
Plainly, The Bridge was not God’s answer sent -
But became the space where love had leant,
Subtle instruction forsaken reasoned query,
Slipping all answers 'cept Loving Care,
as aftermath to a sorrow's befallen tragedy.
R.E. Slater and ChatGPT
May 11, 2025
@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved
 |
| Illustration by ChatGPT |
References to be read ahead of this article:
Additional Articles on Process-based Divine Coherence:
(How God Works in the World processually)
* * * * * * *
Thornton Wilder's Question of "Determinism"
by R.E. Slater
When reading Thornton Wilder's "Bridge of San Luis Rey" the author and its several mitigants throughout his brief tract asked whether God is involved in everyman's circumstances, including death? And if so, to what extent and for what purpose? Or, if death is but sole cause alone, has become in itself, the cold, cruel process which it is oft times portrayed as heartless claimant to everyman's right to live and die?
In the law, a mitigant - or a mitigating circumstance - is a factor which reduces the severity of a crime or penalty. It becomes not an excuse, nor a justification, for the ill circumstance befallen the injured but serves to explain why a fate might have resulted, or a penalty incurred, especially in light of no known criminal record or blackard sin resulting from the afore sufferers experience of mitigating factors resulting in oppression, injury or death.
In the bible a similar circumstance had befallen 18 unfortunates to which Jesus asked whether they were sinners come to be judged by God? At first, Jesus' inquirers tell of Pilate's factious murder of visiting Galileans to the Temple whom Pilate deemed as "malicious rioters"; Jesus' inquirers posed this question to draw Jesus out politically, whether for-or-against Rome's puppet, Pilate. In answer, Jesus asks his audience whether God judges sin or not by using this illustration:
The Tower of Siloam (Lk 13.1-11)
13.1 There were present at that season some that told Jesus of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they had suffered such things?"
3 I tell you, "Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
4 Of those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and had died, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
10 And Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
The common Christian question put forth in all three instances of this parable is whether one's heart has been changed - not whether God is judging sin but whether one's own self has regarded the times and the seasons of life and is ready at all times for ill fortune or death's demise?
From Jesus' observation he dismisses the four assumptions most people make of an assumed befallen tragedy:
1) Suffering is proportional to sinfulness.
2) Tragedy is a sure sign of God’s judgment.
3) Bad things happen only to bad people.
4) We have the right to make such judgments.
To each assumption Jesus says, "No."
1) Suffering is NOT proportional to sinfulness;
2) Tragedy is NOT a sure sign of God's judgment;
3) Bad things DO NOT happen only to bad people; and,
4) We DO NOT have the right to cast such judgments upon others.
Therefore, in answer, to Thornton Wilder's assessment spoken through Friar Juniper and all succeeding voices within his tract, The Bridge to San Luis Rey, we may answer similarly. That the fate befallen the five victims of the broken rope bridge were not being judged by God nor were sinners whose time had come.
Which leaves but the single most pertinent question which Wilder was attempting to answer but couldn't - or, as most critics would say, Wilder was presenting the problem in the form of a question without any interest in answering the question... as it was an exercise in futility.
The question?
Does God determine the course of every life force on earth? Does God command all futures and calamities, all blessings and fortunes, including our deaths?
Framing Wilder's Question
Wilder sets up the collapse of the bridge as a test case for divine determinism. Brother Juniper’s question is blunt: "Why did these five people die and not others?" He tries to prove that God had a reason, perhaps rooted in virtue, vice, or a cosmic plan. His “scientific theology” attempts to rationalize providence's actions or lack of actions.
Ultimately the friar's inquiry fails. His book is burned. The Catholic Church condemns him. And the narrator (Wilder’s voice) concludes not with answers but with the all too casual statement, “The bridge is love.”
So while the novel begins as a deterministic inquiry, it ends with a kind of existential surrender to relational meaning - but not as an explanatory logistical treatment of the expose.
Classical Theology’s Answer
In traditional Christian theology (especially Calvinist: cf, John Calvin), God indeed, determines all things, including: - Life and death,
- Fortune and fate,
- Who is saved and who is not.
This is known as theological determinism—but it comes with problems:
- It risks making God arbitrary or cruel.
- It undermines human freedom and responsibility.
- It offers little comfort in suffering except “God willed it.”
Thornton Wilder who was raised religiously shows that he is unsettled in this view and does not wish to affirm it. As such he asks the question of God's rightness and justness in willing everyman's life force to its fate or fortune.
A Loving Theology's Answer
Typically, a non-Calvinistic, non-deterministic theological response might be summarily listed using an Arminianist Protestant approach (cf, Jacobus Arminius) emphasizing human free will and the compatibility of God's sovereignty alongside human agency. As such, it reframes the posed question entirely: - No, God does not determine fate or death.
- Yes, God is present in every moment—but not as controller.
17th Century Arminianism has come a long way since morphing in its journey to become more properly expressed in the current theology known as "Open and Relational" Free will theology. But rather than keeping its philosophical foundation planted in an Western-European ecclectic, if not Platonic et al thought, another more expansive philosophic theology has been gaining traction since it's proposal in the late 19th century spanning both Western and Eastern thought forms.
In process theology Wilder's questions may be restated to say:
- God offers possibilities, not guarantees.
- Every event is shaped by past actualities, human decisions, and divine persuasion.
- Death is real—not part of a secret plan; but must be considered as a living process in which all life-forces participate.
- God suffers with us, and holds every life in loving memory.
And so, when five unfortunates, possible innocents, and all vital life-forces within the web of life, fall to their deaths from a breaking backwater Peruvian bridge in the 15th century:
- It is not because God chose it.
- But God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward.
- And that is why “the bridge is love”—not control.
God does not chose our fate or fortune but God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations of all that ripple outwards to-and-from our lives. And throughout the process of life - whether we describe God's acts as from above, from below, or from the sides and peripheries of life; whether they are seen or unseen, whether they are causal or acausal - in all of God's loving acts is God's patient abiding, presence, and fellowship as we allow God's presence to be felt, experienced, and followed.
Such divine comradery is unlike the church's more dreadful teachings on the fear of God's wrath, punishment, and judgments in this life and the next. As Thornton Wilder observed in The Bridge, whenever one questions the church's teachings on God one may do so at one's peril - as illustrated by the burning at the stake of poor Brother Juniper accused of heresy (who apparently was an actual historical personage according to Wilder's notes) having experienced personal execution at the hands of his fellow parish brothers during the extensive cruel time of the Spanish Inquisition. All in the name of God. To preserve God's fear. God's attribution of Name. And God's severe high holiness.
One might also expect the more common act of excommunication by the church which many a Christian congregant has experienced in times of hardship and peril in today's 20th and 21st century churches of conservative fame and claim.
None of these "Christian acts" is because God chose or directed it. As they were not. But God is assuredly there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward. And it is why the existential or spiritual bridge is always one of divine love and not of divine control.
Conclusion
Those three simple lines capture the process-relational alternative to providential determinism—and when unpacking their meaning deepens both the personal, emotional and theological meaning.
Let’s expand upon them meditatively and metaphysically:
1) “It is not because God chose it.” This is a rejection of divine determinism. In process theology (Whitehead, Cobb, Hartshorne), God is not the author of death, disaster, or tragedy. The universe is not scripted. God does not pick winners and losers, nor orchestrate suffering “for a greater plan.”
Instead, God invites, lures, offers the best possible outcomes given all conditions. Why? Because the world is a real space for real living. Living that can be free, relational, and very fragile. Accidents happen. Choices matter. Structures fail. But to say “God chose it” is to rob the world of its agency and God of divine compassion.
2) “God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward.” This is Whitehead’s “consequent nature of God”: God experiences all things with the world. Every joy, every loss, every falling body and breaking heart is registered and felt by God.
God is the cosmic rememberer - holding even death tenderly. But God is more: God becomes the source of transformation. In grief, we may love more deeply. In loss, new connections may arise. In sorrow, beauty may emerge - not as compensation, but as creative consequence. God is not the one who prevents the fall, but the one who walks with those left behind, guiding what comes next.
3) And this is why ‘the bridge is love’ - not control.” This is Wilder’s final line, recast through Whitehead’s lens. “The bridge is love” means: Not that the deaths were meant to happen, but that the lives mattered, and the love they shared transcends any fall.
Love, in process thought, is the coherence of becoming: It’s what binds events together across time. It’s what lingers, deepens, and carries forward. It’s the energy of divine relationality, not divine sovereignty. Control says: This happened because I willed it. Love says: This happened, and I will be with you through it all.
R.E. Slater
May 11, 2025
