Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Very simply, panentheism is the belief that God dwells in and around
    all of creation.  KB or Mike V., would you care to elaborate?
    
    Nanci

    Panentheism holds that God is both immanent and transcendent, that
    everything exists in God, and God exists in everything.  Some relevant
    passages:
    
    	God is love
    	and anyone who lives in love lives in God
    	and God in him/her  1 John 4:16
    
    	Make your home in me, as I make mine in you,
    	I am the vine, you are the branches.
    	Whoever remains in me, with me in him,
    	bears plentiful fruit.  John 15: 4,5
    
    	Father, may they be one in us,
    	as you are in me and I am in you;
    	I have given them the glory you gave to me,
    	that they may be one as we are one.
    	With me in them and you in me.  John 17: 21,22
    
    In the words of a few Christian mystics:
    
    	God created all things in such a way that they are not outside
    himself, as ignorant people falsely imagine.  Rather, all creatures
    flow outward, but nonetheless remain within God. -- Meister Eckhart
    
    	The day of my spiritual awakening was the day I saw - and knew I
    saw - all things in God and God in all things.  -- Mechtild of
    Magdeburg
    
    	We are in God and God, whom we do not see, is in us. -- Julian of
    Norwich
    
    
    Karen

re Note 523.0 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     Panentheism is not in my little DEC issued dictionary. Can someone
>     tell me what it is? Also, Karen, can you point me to where in the
>     Bible this comes from? Thanks.
  
        Would you believe I have an unabridged dictionary in my
        office (Random House) and it does not have an entry for
        "panentheism"?

        Bob

    Thanks, Karen, for providing that definition.  I am not as familiar
    with panentheism in general as I am with one particular variant of
    panentheism, process theology.  My best take at a general
    definition would involve contrasting pantheism, panentheism, and
    classical theism; it may reflect a bias towards the way process
    theology views things, so take what I say with a grain of salt. 
    Anyway, as I would define it in a nutshell, whereas according to
    pantheism, God and the universe are one and the same, panentheism
    instead considers God and the universe to be separate but related to
    one another; and classical theism considers God and the universe to be
    separate and unrelated.

    Classical theism owes a lot to Aristotle's concept of God.  According
    to Aristotle, world is irrelevant to God, and does not affect Him/Her
    in any way.  The ancient Greek philosophers were highly regarded by
    many later theologians, and many of their ideas persisted.  This idea
    of God as unaffected by the world was accepted by both Anselm and
    Aquinas.  One ofthose two--I think it was Anselm--was even led to the
    bizarre conclusion that since God is unaffected by the world, God
    therefore only *seems* to love us.  This view is in contrast with the
    Hebrew conception of God, as portrayed in the Bible, which portrays God
    as taking an active interest in what happens in the world, and as
    responding to what we do with anger, with tenderness, and
    disappointment.

    Process theology emphasizes, among other things, the fact that God's
    perfect knowledge means that he/she shares in our experiences, and
    feels what we feel, including both our sufferings and our joys.  It is
    this perfect Divine empathy that process theology takes particular note
    of.  The view that all of our experiences are permanently and
    irrevocably known by God is identified according to a term borrowed
    from Whitehead as Objective Immortality.

    Process theology may also hold some other views that are probably
    specific to its own perspective, and not inherent to panentheism in
    general, but I think the above comments would probably be not too
    dissimilar from what most other panentheistic philosophies believe.

    -- Mike

    I am pretty sure the term is defined in at least one of my
    philosophical dictionaries.  If I can find either one of them (they
    seem to have disappeared), I'll dig up the definitions that they have.
    
    -- Mike

The biblical quotes provided support immanence but do not support panentheism.

Immanence means that God dwells within and among us, that he is active within
a creation which is totally separate from his own being.  Panentheism means
that God _is_ us plus the animals plus the planets plus more.

In panentheism, all of creation is part of God; panentheism differs from
pantheism only in that in pantheism God and creation are one and the same,
whereas with panentheism, creation is part and parcel of a God which also
transcends creation.  Panentheism is contrary to creation out of nothing.

Panentheism is not a Christian Perspective.

The Christian Perspective is that through Christ's Incarnation God came to
dwell amongst us and took on our human nature.  Through Christ's Death and
Resurrection, our human nature is taken to and dwells with God.

/john

>panentheism differs from
>pantheism only in that in pantheism God and creation are one and the same,
>whereas with panentheism, creation is part and parcel of a God which also
>transcends creation.  
    
    The mere fact that you disagree with both God-concepts does make the
    differences between them irrelevant.  One could also just as easily say
    that panentheism differs only from classical theism in that in
    panentheism, God and creation are related to one another, while in
    classical theism God is unrelated internally to creation.  The fact
    remains that panentheism is a third alternative between pantheism and
    classical theism.
    
    	>Panentheism is not a Christian Perspective

    That is your opinion.

    It is true that Process theology rejects the doctrine of creation ex
    nihilo.  However, I don't know if other variants of panentheism agree
    with process theology on this question or not.  As I mentioned, the
    Process Theology view of  Panentheism, unlike the classical theism of
    Aquinas and Anselm, views God as being affected by the universe. 
    Hartshorne, a process philosopher, analyzed this internal relationship,
    as opposed to merely an external one in which God affects but is
    unaffected.  Panentheism is, as I also mentioned, consistent with the
    Bible's portrayal of a God who is not unconcerned with what happens
    here on earth.

    Personally, I have no interest in worshiping an indifferent God anyway,
    and it surprises me that anyone would.  It is hardly unexpected that
    Anselm would have concluded that God only seemed to care about us, not
    only since that was the logical conclusion of his Greek-influenced
    theism, but because his Ontological Argument focused on the idea of God
    as necessary, and thus excluded any consideration of contingent
    relationships between God and creation.

    -- Mike

    /john .6,
    
    > Panentheism means that God _is_ us plus the animals plus the 
    planets plus more. <
    
    Not quite.  Consider the etymology of "en".  It means "in" not "is."  
    God is IN all, _and_ all is IN God.
    
    > Panentheism differs from pantheism only in that in pantheism God 
    and creation are one and the same, whereas with panentheism, creation 
    is part and parcel of a God which also transcends creation. <
    
    Now you're on the right track, though you're still missing that 
    crucial word "in."
    
    > Panentheism is contrary to creation out of nothing.
    
    Ooops. You just jumped the track...
    
    > Panentheism is not a Christian Perspective.
    
    Oh my.  Thousands of Christians, past and present, would disagree 
    with you.  Fwiw, of course.  For a start, may I refer you to Matthew 
    Fox's _Original Blessing_ and _Coming of the Cosmic Christ_ and various 
    other works of Christian mystics named in .2?
    
    > The biblical quotes provided support immanence but do not support 
    panentheism. <
    
    Try reading them again.  (Hint:  Look for the word "in" and notice how 
    it's used to acknowledge the flow, presence and relationship of divinity 
    between God and Creation.)
    
    Or, perhaps I'm missing your point?  If you say the quotes in .2 
    support immanence, then you're saying the Bible supports 
    pantheism...?  /john, is pantheism a, or more importantly, *your* 
    Christian perspective??
    
    Karen    

>    Personally, I have no interest in worshiping an indifferent God anyway,

The Christian Perspective is that God is not indifferent; in fact, he so
loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son...

Karen, your definition of panentheism is obviously different from Mike's.

You seem to be talking about Immanence, which is the Christian Perspective,
for with Immanence, God is wholly separate, but involved with his creation.

Mike's definition of panentheism is the same non-Christian definition as
mine, that panentheism differs from pantheism (both of which are rejected
by Christianity) in the manner I described in my previous reply as well
as in a reply taken from literature on the subject in topic 256.

/john

    Mike,
    
    Thanks very much for the refresher on Process Theology.  As you
    probably know, Matthew Fox references Alfred North Whitehead's work 
    on Process Theology in his works.  I myself view it as a very natural 
    stream of inspiration and first-generation "offspring", if you will, of 
    panentheism.
    
    Karen     

Process theology, with its belief that God is affected by his creation,
is contrary to Judeo-Christian teaching, which holds that God is omnipotent
and unchanging, and is not subject to control by what his creation decides
to do of its own free will.

/john

    /john .10,
    
    Hmmm....is Mercury retrograde or something?  Oops.  Wrong conference.
    :-)
    
    I don't know how clearer I can be.  I'm _not_ talking immanance.  And as
    far as I can tell, Mike and I agree on the definition of panentheism.  
    I'm not sure what you're reading, /john.
    
    Also, the concept of Immanence, to my knowledge, does not mean "separate"
    at all /john.  Immanence means "inherent" or "within."  The notion of a 
    God which is considered separate is refered to as Transcendent.
    
    Karen 

>The Christian Perspective is that God is not indifferent; 
    
    John, you disagree with Aquinas and Anselm, and you agree with process
    theology on this view of God.  I think this is in one way perhaps the
    most fundamental issue that process theology has with classical
    theism--which claims that God doesn't merely appear to love us while
    actually being unaffected by what we do.  Rather, process theology
    believes that that God *is* affected by our actions, and not
    indifferent to us.  And this view of God as being affected by us is
    consistent with the Bible's portrayal of God, as you point out.
    
    And although Anselm and Aqunias, spokespersons for classical theism,
    viewed God differently from the panentheist conception of process
    theology, I wouldn't say that those two saints of the Christian church
    are not Christians.
    
    -- Mike

Where do you come up with the claim that Aquinas considers God to be
indifferent?

I don't understand how anyone who has made a real profession of Christian
faith could possibly consider God to be indifferent.

>Process theology, with its belief that God is affected by his creation,
>is contrary to Judeo-Christian teaching, which holds that God is omnipotent
>and unchanging, and is not subject to control by what his creation decides
>to do of its own free will.
    
    
    I wish you'd make up your mind, John!  First you say that God is not
    indifferent to creation, and now you say that God is indifferent to
    creation!  Well, which is it?  Is God indifferent to us or not? This is
    the fundamental problem that Anselm faced, and because he could not let
    go of the idea that God is unchanging he was forced to conclude that God
    must only *seem* to be concerned for us and affected by what we do.
    
    It is true, by the way, that process theology does not view God as
    omnipotent, and this is something that most Christians would disagree
    with.  However, that is not necessarily the same question as whether or
    not God is affected by creation.  Process theology does believe that
    God has unchanging attributes, by the way, a point that you may not
    have realized.  To say that process theology believes that God changes
    is to describe only half the picture.
    
    -- Mike

    Aquinas considered God to be indifferent because he believed, as you
    do, that God's perfection meant that he could not change, and if he
    could not change then he could not be affected by what we do.
    
    -- Mike

>    Also, the concept of Immanence, to my knowledge, does not mean "separate"
>    at all /john.  Immanence means "inherent" or "within."  The notion of a 
>    God which is considered separate is refered to as Transcendent.

Christianity teaches that God is both Immanent and Transcendent within a
creation created out of nothing and wholly separate from himself -- but
that the evidence of his constant involvement with that creation is shown
in his revelation to humankind in the Old and New Testament.

Panentheism teaches that God created Creation as part of himself.

/john

>    Aquinas considered God to be indifferent because he believed, as you
>    do, that God's perfection meant that he could not change, and if he
>    could not change then he could not be affected by what we do.

Did Aquinas make this connection you make between "indifference" and "not
being affected"?

In Christianity, God cares about his creation, and wants humankind to turn
to him.

That does not mean that God changes his own being and especially does not
mean that God changes what he requires of humankind as society develops.

/john

>Panentheism teaches that God created Creation as part of himself.
    
    Well, once again, I can't speak for other variants of panentheism, but
    process theology clearly does not believe this.  Process theology
    believes that creation is both separate from God and part of God, and
    vice versa.  Thus creation is not viewed as simply a subset of God, as
    you seem to be implying.  The relationship is mutual, an
    *inter*-relationship, in which both creation and God partake of one
    another.
    
    -- Mike

>>Panentheism teaches that God created Creation as part of himself.
>    
>    Well, once again, I can't speak for other variants of panentheism, but
>    process theology clearly does not believe this.  Process theology
>    believes that creation is both separate from God and part of God, and
>    vice versa.  Thus creation is not viewed as simply a subset of God, as
>    you seem to be implying.  The relationship is mutual, an
>    *inter*-relationship, in which both creation and God partake of one
>    another.

Note that what I am implying is what my understanding of panentheism is.

Christian teaching is that God is separate from his creation, but that he
is highly involved with it.  He affects it, but it does not change him,
for he is what he is.

/john

>Did Aquinas make this connection you make between "indifference" and "not
>being affected"?

    Presumably, since the relationship between the two is analytic in the
    definition of "not affected".  Anselm certainly did.  The Bible
    reports, for example, that God was frequently angered by Israel.  To
    inspire anger in God is to cause God to respond in some way.  If God
    had been unaffected, God would have been indifferent.  This is an
    important point that process theology makes, in contrast to the
    Greek-inspired definitions of God as unmoved and unaffected by the
    world. 
    
>That does not mean that God changes his own being and especially does not
>mean that God changes what he requires of humankind as society develops.
    
    If by "his own being" you mean God's eternal, necessary, and abstract
    qualities--his goodness, his infinite love, etc.--then you and process
    theology are in agreement that these do not change.
    
    However, the crux of the philosphical problem is that many theologians
    have interpreted "unchanging" to mean unchanging in *all*
    ways--including not just in the abstract and necessary qualities, but
    also in the concrete and contingent aspects of God's relationship to
    the universe.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .20 Mike,
    
    I agree with you.  Panentheism, and I'm quite familiar with the overall
    perspective having studied panentheistic Christian mystics for years, 
    CLEARLY, does not teach that creation is a subset of God or that
    "God created Creation as part of himself."  
    
    /john, what sources are you deriving your information from?
    
    Karen                                           

        When you folks finally decide (if ever) how many angels can
        dance on the head of a pin, would you mind discussing the
        practical implications of the distinctions you are trying to
        draw?

        Bob

    God in Heaven simply exists apart from "time" and "matter" which are
    His creation.

    Yet time and matter are the things which are conceptually integral to
    the idea of "process", so to form premises which impart God bound
    within time and matter is meaningless.

    My guess here at work, is that the context of Saint Anslem and Saint
    Thomas Aquinas applies to the idea of an infinite God not so much
    indifferent but possessing infinite love and mercy in contrast to the
    heresy that God is in several ways limited and not possessing infinite
    love and mercy.

    God is ineffable, which means beyond expression, and _that_ word you
    will find in the dictionary.

    re .12
    
    "Jesus wept" -- I guess to me that means God cares like a real lot!
    
    re .16
    
    On "omnipotence" -- well, I guess I believe God is omnipotent ok, she
    just doesn't choose to use it!
    
    	Peace,
    
    	Ron

RE .4
    
>    ...classical theism considers God and the universe to be
>    separate and unrelated.

>    Classical theism owes a lot to Aristotle's concept of God.  According
>    to Aristotle, world is irrelevant to God, and does not affect Him/Her
>    in any way.  
    
    Mike,
    
    My question may have been answered somewhere between .4 and .26, but
    here goes anyway:  Your definition of theism sounds a lot like my
    understanding of deism (where God is like a watchmaker and creation is
    like the watch -- no relationship involved or desired).
    
    Clarify please?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Nancy is correct.

    Deism: God exists but is no longer involved.  The watchmaker has made
    the watch.

    Theism: God exists and is involved.  The Good Shepherd.

    These are just conventional definitions but it's important to share the
    same language.

    Nancy,
    
    As you pointed out, deism believes that God does not actively
    participate in the world, and classical theism believes that God does
    actively participate (through miracles, for example.)
    
    In classical theism, however, the participation is one way--God is
    related to the world only externally, in the sense of influencing the
    world, but not internally, in the sense of being influenced by it. 
    Under deism, once the universe is set in motion, there is no
    relationship in any sense.
    
    -- Mike

    Charles Hartshorne, in his book "The Divine Relativity", defines
    panentheism this way:

    'If "pantheism" is a historically and etymologically appropriate term
    for the view that deity is the all of relative or interdependent items,
    with nothing wholly independent or in any clear sense nonrelative, then
    "panentheism" is an appropriate term for the view that the deity is in
    some real aspect distinguishable from and independent of any and all
    relative items, and yet, taken as an actual whole, includes all
    relative items.  Traditional theism or deism makes God solely
    independent or noninclusive.  Thus there are logically the three views:
    (1) God is merely the cosmos, in all aspects inseparable from the sum
    or system of dependent things of effects; (2) he is both this system
    and something independent of it; (3) he is not the system, but is in
    all aspects independent.  The second view is panentheism.  The first
    view includes any doctrine which, like Spinoza's, asserts that there is
    a premise from which all facts are implied conclusions.  A proposition
    means whatever follows from it, and it is contradictory or meaningless
    to say that God is independent of all things because he necessitates
    them.  Effects imply their causes (whether or not causes do their
    effects) and what implies particulars is logically on the level of the
    effect or the dependent, not of the independent.  Panentheism agrees
    with traditional theism on the important point that the divine
    individuality, that without which God would not be God, must be
    logically independent, that is, must not involve any particular world. 
    The distinction between individual and state, or personality and
    experience, enables us to combine this point of theism with the equally
    necessary point of traditional pantheism that God cannot in his full
    actuality be less or other than literally all-inclusive.  This view is
    exactly as far from traditional pantheism as from traditional theism,
    and therefore I suggest it would be ignorance or bad faith to call it
    pantheism.  A suitable term has been proposed (not first by me).  I
    scarcely need to say that surrelativism [a doctrine of Hartshorne's
    process theology] and panentheism are logically the same doctrine with
    only a difference of emphasis.'

    From "Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition", by David Ray
    Griffin and John Cobb:

    Christian faith has held that the basic character of this divine
    reality is best described by the term "love."  However, the meaning of
    the statement "God is love" is by no means self-evident.  Whitehead
    helps us to recover much of the meaning of that phrase as it is found
    in the New Testament.

    We are told by psychologists, and we know from our own experience, that
    love in the fullest sense involves a sympathetic response to the loved
    one.  Sympathy means feeling the feelings of the other, hurting with
    the pains of the other, grieving with the grief, rejoicing with the
    joys.  The "others" with whom we sympathize most immediately are the
    members of our own bodies.  When the cells in our hands, for example,
    are in pain, we share in the pain; we do not view their condition
    impassively from without.  When our bodies are healthy and well
    exercised, we feel good with them.  But we also feel sympathy for other
    human beings.  We would doubt that a husband truly loved his wife if
    his mood did not to some extent reflect hers.

    Nevertheless, traditional theism said that God is completely impassive,
    that there was no element of sympathy in the divine love for the
    creatures.  The fact that there was an awareness that this Greek notion
    of Divine impassibility was in serious tension with the Biblical notion
    of divine love for the world is most clearly reflected in this prayer
    of the eleventh-century theologian Anselm:

        Although it is better for thee to be...compassionate, passionless,
        than not to be these things; how are thou...compassionate, and, at
        the same time, passionless?  For, it thou art passionless, thou
        dost not feel sympathy; and if thou dost not feel sympathy, thy
        heart is not wretched from sympathy for the wretched; but this is
        to be compassionate.  (Anselm, Proslogium, VI and VII}

    Anselm resolved the tension by saying: "Thou are compassionate in terms
    of our experience, and not compassionate in terms of thy being."  In
    other words, God only *seems* to us to be compassionate; he is not
    *really* compassionate!  In Anselm's words: "When thou beholdest us in
    our wretchedness, we experience the effect of compassion, but thou does
    not experience the feeling."  Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century
    faced the same problem.  The objection to the idea that there is love
    in God was stated as follows: "For in God there are no passions.  Now
    love is a passion.  Therefore love is not in God." (Summa Theologica I,
    Q. 20, art. 1, obj. 1.)  Thomas responds by making a distinction
    between two elements within love, one which involves passion and one
    which does not.  He then says, after quoting Aristotle favorably, that
    God "loves without passion." (Ibid, ans. 1.)

    This denial of an element of sympathetic responsiveness to the divine
    love meant that it was entirely creative.  That is, God loves us only in
    the sense that he does good things for us.  In Anselm's words:

        Thou art both compassionate, because thou dost save the wretched,
        and spare those who sin against thee; and not compassionate,
        because thou art affected by no sympathy for wretchedness.
        (Prosologium, VII)

    In Thomas' words: "To sorrow, therefore, over the misery of others
    belongs not to God, but it does most properly belong to Him to dispel
    that misery." (Summa Theologica I, Q. 21, art.3, ans.)

    Accordingly, for Anselm and Thomas the analogy is with the father who
    has no feeling for his children, and hence does not feel their needs,
    but "loves" them in that he gives good things to them.  Thomas
    explicitly states that "love" is to be understood in this purely
    outgoing sense, as active goodwill:  "To love anything is nothing else
    than to will good to that thing."  He points out that God does not love
    as we love.  For our love is partly responsive, since it is moved by
    its object, whereas the divine love is purely creative, since it
    creates its object (Summa Theologica I, Q. 20, art. 2, ans.)...

    ...This traditional notion of love as solely creative was based upon
    the value judgment that independence or absoluteness is unqualifiedly
    good, and that dependence or relativity in any sense derogates from
    perfection.  But...while perfection entails independence or
    absoluteness in some respects, it also entails dependence or relativity
    in other respects.  It entails ethical independence, in the sense that
    one should not be deflected by one's passions from the basic commitment
    to seek the greatest good in all situations.  But this ethical
    commitment, in order to be actualized in concrete situations, requires
    responsiveness to the actual needs and desires of others.  Hence, to
    promote the greatest good, one must be informed by, and thus
    relativized by, the feelings of others.  Furthermore, we do not admire
    someone whose enjoyment is not in part dependent upon the condition of
    those around them.  Parents who remained in absolute bliss while their
    children were in agony would not be perfect--unless there are such
    beings as perfect monsters!
    
    		(pp. 44-47)

    From Hartshorne's book, "The Divine Relativity":

    What does Anselm's statement amount to?  Is it not this, that we should
    love God, not as we love our friends, sympathetically and with
    appreciation of their sympathy for us, but solely in terms of the
    benefits which we receive from him--just as crassly utilitarian persons
    see in friendship only utility?  To such a person we should say that
    the greatest utility of all is the sense of mutual enrichment through
    sympathetic sharing of feelings and ideas.  Anselm's God can give us
    everything, everything except the right to believe that there is one
    who, with infinitely subtle and appropriate sensitivity, rejoices in
    all our joys and sorrows in all our sorrows.  But this benefit which
    Anselm will not allow God to bestow upon us is the supreme benefit
    which God and only God could give us.  We are left with the crude and
    blundering sympathies of men, or the alleged sympathies of angels--who,
    if they exist, are still necessarily limited in their sensitivity--as
    the best social responses we are privileged to occasion.  To say, "all
    the effects of compassion, only not the compassion itself," is to mock
    us.  For the supreme effect of compassion is to give us the awareness
    that someone really and literally responds to our feelings with
    sympathetic appreciation.  (pp. 54-55)

    Thanks, Pat and Mike.  My understanding was closer to Pat's than
    Mike's, but perhaps I learned a version of theism other than
    "classical."
    
    Eventually I learned, and adopted, personalism, which is a form of
    theism where God is intimately involved -- to the extend that created
    things are "ideas in the Mind of God!"  Very close to panentheism, but
    I'm not sure I'd equate the two.
    
    Thanks again; carry on...
    Nancy

    /john .29,
    
    Your pity is mis-placed. :-)
    
    I indicated in an earlier note that the definition you offered was 
    "on the right track."  I'm not an expert on all the various 
    gradations and philosphical points of panentheism, but as a 
    panentheist, I do have more than a cursory knowledge of the subject. 
    :-)  
    
    As such, I pointed out when you began to make erroneous statements 
    about the subject, (which, btw, I hope and trust you would do for me 
    if I were to make inaccurate statements on Episcopalianism).  That's 
    what this notes conference is about for me.  It provides the 
    opportunity to learn and explore various Christian perspectives with 
    each other.
    
    The definitions you offered from Merriam's and the encyclopedia 
    Brittanica are good starting points.  My recommendation is not to 
    stop there, however, believing you have acquired a comprehensive 
    understanding of the subject.  That can only be gained by reading the 
    works of, and talking with panentheists themselves about their beliefs
    and how they live them day to day.  
    
    Karen