affirmed by some implicit qualification or redefinition of the word ‘God’. That is to say, all too often God’s lovingness is affirmed by assuming creation to be in some sense necessary to God. This strategy takes a variety of forms and poses under a variety of names, but whether it is the notion of God’s becoming as expressed within the process theology of Charles Hartshorne,19 or the all too common and glib refutation of divine impassability in the misguided attempt to render God’s lovingness in