A couple Process philosophers who gravitated toward an evolutionary framework of the Divine were Alfred North Whitehead and his student Charles Hartshorne. In attempt to create a lineage for his teachings, AC used these thought leaders, along with Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin and other Integral thinkers, to add credibility to Evolutionary Enlightenment.
And most of these Process thinkers did enrich the classical theistic notion of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and static by considering Creative Evolution. The idea here being that the God is transcendent and immanent, and the immanent evolves (a.k.a. Panentheism). If you add into the mix that the transcendent is impersonal, which AC did coming from an Advaita path, and that Becoming should take precedence over Being because it's all Process, then you've got the latest and greatest in evolutionary spirituality. Yet, while culturally relevant and somewhat sexy, one has to question if such a metaphysical notion is logically consistent and internally coherent. It would seem to me that all those cracks that led to fall of AC's community could possibly go beyond AC himself, and be coming from the fact that the teachings themselves are also problematic. But how so?
First, In the case of permanence and flux, if you come down on either side, you are going to privilege a side to God in an unhealthy way. It would be like approaching the Trinity by saying the any of the three Persons of God is higher than the other. When there is no Father in the absence of the Son, and no Son in absence of the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. This is complementarity that can not be compartmentalized. By giving Becoming more credence than Being, AC was able to make God whatever he wanted Him to be according to the flux in culture and science. What if science got it wrong, or culture is heading in bad place. Is God wrong then? No, but AC sure was. As Chesterton quipped, “How is the evolutionist to know which Beyond is the better; unless he accepts from the past and present some standard of the best?” In AC's case, it came down his vision with was also co-opted by his egoic fallibilities too.
Next, a God seen as Process will always be seen as contextual, relational, and impersonal. And there is some Truth to that. But what about the absolute, individualistic, and Personal side to God? Can we truly worship an impersonal God? I would argue most likely not. Love is relational, and in that regard, our relationship to Him is very Personal. And while there may be an impersonal dimension to God, there is most likely a Personal one too (look at it as two sides of a coin). So by making his God an impersonal process, AC became the flawed devotional vessel for his followers. While this what the guru model represents, it is incomplete if done outside of the context of something higher to worship in relationship. Robert Neville claimed that Process theism, based on Whitehead's doctrines, is “incoherent, superfluous, and descriptive of an alleged reality that would not be worthy of worship even if it existed.” So if you can't worship that God, AC is all you got.
In one respect, AC was right that we influence God, but we can not change Him. As W. Norris Clarke said, “God in his eternal NOW is cognitively and actively present to all that goes on in our changing world, his intentional consciousness with respect to us is eternally contingently different because of what he and we do, but not changing — a distinction constantly missed by Process thinkers such as Whitehead and Hartshorne. “Different” means “could have been otherwise”; “changing” means “now one way, later another” — two quite different concepts. God can rejoice eternally, but contingently, in free responses we make to the gifts and inspirations he has already freely given us — which are all limited participations in his own infinite goodness and power, never rising higher than the original source. For God to rejoice in his own freely given, but eternally decided participations is not to change.” Again, this is metaphysically crucial as God remains a mystery above and beyond man to be worshiped in relationship beyond the collective, the holon, and the guru.
Next, by placing any scientific theory (like evolution) as an integral part of theology exposes it to the risk of collapse should the theory prove to be false or is replaced by another theory. Even if valid, AC did not even understand that evolution is not a straight arrow, but comes about in fits and starts and often needs stability prior to another leap in complexity. By pressing on his students to constantly evolve (because the Process demands its), it places too much emphasis on the strive to grasp in place of the allowance for receptivity. Grace has its place, and it may not always require one to evolve.
Lastly, what if it's not about all this increasing complexification of Process, but more a unification of the Personal? We know from systems theory, the cosmos is a deep movement from simplification to complexity. But this “assertion of the increasing 'complexification' through mind necessarily implies its unification around a personal center, for mind is not just an undefined something or other; where it exists in its own specific nature, it subsists as individuality, as person (Ratzinger).” Therefore, this “implies that the cosmos is moving toward a unification in the personal,” and “confirms once again the infinite precedence of the individual over the universal.... The world is in motion toward unity in the person.” AC made it all about the sake for the whole, when the whole draws its meaning for the Personal. As such, in AC's world, the Personal is lost to a mere idea when “person always takes precedence over the mere idea (Ratzinger).”
Peter Kreeft says, “God is infinite love, and what is infinite does not increase. This would only assume His Love is not complete. It through His love that we create with God, which changes our relationship to Him but does not change God... But how can there be a relationship between the changing and unchanging. Much like there is with the unchanging sun and changing world. There is also a changing relationship between unchanging moral principles and changing applications of them to changing situations.” While the relationship to the Divine changes, it may not be in the way envisioned by AC or any other utopian notions we can come up with immanently. God's telos is more mysterious than that, and the emphasis should always be on Unity in Person over the mere ideas around the Progress of Process. Otherwise, we may end up selling our souls short of our True Potential.