Process theology has many implications for the problem of evil. It has strength in that it removes the logical problem of evil by removing a part of the inconsistent triad. God did not create the universe and therefore did not create evil, he is not responsible for the evil in the world. God cannot control evil, indeed, he suffers too therefore the continuance of evil in the Universe is explained. Process theologians believe that this universe is better than no universe at all and that ultimately the good in the universe outweighs the bad. It also maintains that the idea of God as a co-sufferer encourages humanity to join God in the fight against evil.
However, this is not an entirely encouraging idea. If God is not omnipotent and is not assured of a victory over evil, then there is little incentive for humans to join the fight against evil. There is no guarantee of a reward in heaven and punishment for sinners therefore the rewards of evil seem equally, if not more attractive than the struggle against evil.
Also, God is not entirely free from the responsibility of the occurrence of evil since he began the process of evolution with the knowledge that he could not control it. This is implies irresponsibility on the part of God. Process theology does not explain why God took the risk of beginning the process.
While process theologians believe that, overall this world is preferable to no world at all because the good ultimately outweighs the bad it is easy to question this. Individually, people who are suffering from evil are hardly likely to be comforted by the thought that there are enough people enjoying themselves to make their own suffering worthwhile. In any case, the idea that a world with evil is preferable to no world at all is purely subjective. Irving Greenburg stated that no theological statement should be made unless it could be accepted in the presence of a burning child. Given the extent of evil in the world, perhaps no world at all, with no evil and no suffering, is more attractive than a world in which the Holocaust in justified.
In addition to these criticisms, a God that is not omnipotent, that suffers with people, that is contingent upon the world, does not seem to be superior to humans morally or spiritually and does not seem worthy of worship. This is not a theodicy because process theology does not justify God, rather it denies the God of Classical theism and replaces it with a diluted, not omnipotent version.
Process theology has merit in that the idea of God as a fellow sufferer that is part of the Universe seems more sympathetic and easier to comprehend than the metaphysical being that transcends the Universe found in classical theism. However, it does not fully explain the problem of evil as it does not free God entirely from the responsibility of beginning a process he could not control. Also, the being that results from compromising a quality such as omnipotence does not seem significantly superior to humans to be worshipped.
