Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Everything In God
As part of the Transforming Theology project, I just received the book "In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World" edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke. The book is a series of essays from a wide variety of theologians. I'm excited about this project, and I'm particularly excited about this book.
One of the main reasons for my enthusiasm is that I've not yet formed a strong opinion of the term Panentheistic. I've never really used the word to describe myself, although many of my favorite authors and theologians use this term freely. I'm not really sure about it. This should be a fun learning and growing experience. In addition to reviewing the material, I will also try to articulate my personal reactions. I hope I'll change and the changes will be apparent in my posts. There is a part of me that wants to use this label. To be honest, I actually just want to find any label that fits. I suspect that a large part of the attraction to religion is the sense of belonging. Having a label can be comforting, at least until it becomes too limiting. The fact that this term is already so flexible and appears to be evolving eases my initial concern that it would eventually become another ideological prison.
At its core, Panentheism (not pantheism) states that all things are in God, yet all things do not exhaust the definition of God. In other words, we are all in God, but there is still a "more". Reading the introduction and opening chapter of this book has given me a clue why I'm so unsure about this concept. There has not been a single definitive understanding of Panentheism. I had no idea it was such a broad range of possibilities and has such a large list of adherents. In fact, you could, and I think a couple of the essays do, make the argument that Panentheism upholds an orthodox trinitarian view of God. On the other end of the spectrum, it sounds much more naturalistic and supportive of modern science.
I'm not sure which part of that definition bothers me the most. I'm not happy about "everything in God" or the idea of a "more". It should be noted that the editors of this book make the case that Panentheism is a type of Theism. It is not less than Theism, but it is a more defined and nuanced description of Theism. I'm a long way from sold on the term, but I'm curious to hear these brilliant thinkers work through the subject.
How does this term strike you?
5 comments:
I usually like the viewpoints that are expressed under the label "panentheism", and have used the term to express my own views.
Linguistically, if one understands God to denote something/someone other than the universe (or multiverse) that subsists "within" God, then presumably it is not "all" that is in God. So perhaps that viewpoint will have to be called something like paneimeotheosentheism? :)
I am glad you are reading this book. I am a panentheist, but don't think it is that radical a view for Christianity. In fact, I think it makes the relationship of God and the World described in scripture make sense. The other broad options, pantheism and classical theism (God and world are completely separate theism) end up depressing me.
I found that the book made more sense if you skip the science section and then go back to after the theology section. Enjoy.
I recently wrote a post on "panentheism". I feel it expresses how I feel about this term. Here's the link:
http://donrogers.org/?p=311
James,
Thanks for stopping by. I think the "someone" in something/someone is what troubles me. Maybe?
If we can't say anything more definitive about the "more" other than something/someone, then have we really said anything? That sounds more like an Agnostic view (which I may be leaning toward at the moment). However, Agnostic feels like saying I'm uninterested or I lack curiosity. I'm definitely interested and very curious!
Maybe I need a term that expresses my inability to define God along with a strong curiosity about what that might be and a faithful quest for understanding. I've always liked Tillich's "ground of being", but what is "being"? Defining one term with another undefined term is simply stating our inability to define it (circling us back to agnostic).
Tripp,
I do agree that Panentheism is not radical. Maybe that is my problem with it. I think I need something more radical. Maybe?
This is just where I'm at now. I expect to develop a better understanding and maybe I'll adopt this term.
Don,
Thanks for the scripture references in your blogpost. Those will come in handy.
hello
I have recently come across process theology on the web and been really inspired with what little reading I have done. I have been drawn to negative theology in the last few years so the whole panenthism thing is a new departure for me - I look fowars to reading your posts.
Rodney
Post a Comment