7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 1/24

Panentheism

 First published Thu Dec 4, 2008; substantive revision Tue Feb 5, 2013

“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of theGreek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God.

Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being

in God and God being in the world. t offers an increasingl! popular alternative to

 both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating

God from the world as traditional theism often does or identif!ing God with the

world as pantheism does. "raditional theistic s!stems emphasi#e the difference

 between God and the world while panentheism stresses God$s active presence in

the world. Pantheism emphasi#es God$s presence in the world but panentheism

maintains the identit! and significance of the non-divine. %nticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and

theological writings throughout histor! &'artshorne and (eese )*+ ooper,

/0012. 'owever, a rich diversit! of panentheistic understandings has developed in

the past two centuries primaril! in hristian traditions responding to scientific

thought &la!ton and Peacocke /0032. 4hile panentheism generall! emphasi#es

God$s presence in the world without losing the distinct identit! of either God or the

world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, e5plain the

nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variet! of wa!s and come to

different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identit! of God.

• ). "erminolog!

• /. 'istor!

• . ontemporar! E5pressions

• 3. riticisms and (esponses

• 6ibliograph!

• %cademic "ools

• 7ther nternet (esources

• (elated Entries

1. Terminology

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 2/24

6ecause modern “panentheism” developed under the influence of German

dealism, 4hiteheadian process philosoph!, and current scientific thought,

 panentheists emplo! a variet! of terms with meanings that have speciali#ed

content.

"heological terms as understood b! panentheists8

). lassical or "raditional "heism

"he understanding that ultimate realit! is a being which is distinct from the

world and an! other realit!. "his distinction often develops into an

ontological separation between God and the world that makes an!

interaction between God and the world problematic.

/. Pantheism

% t!pe of theism that stresses the identit! of God and the worldontologicall!. "his identit! is e5pressed in different manifestations so

distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporar!. "here is often a

strong sense of necessit! in God$s creation of the world so that God as God

must e5press deit! in creation.

. "ranscendence

Generall!, God$s e5ternalit! to the world so that God is unlimited b! an!

other being or realit!. 'egel and then 'artshorne understand transcendence

as including all that is in order to avoid an! realit! e5ternal to God that

limits God.3. mmanence

God$s presence and activit! within the world. Panentheists assert that

traditional theism limits its affirmation of God$s immanence b!

understanding immanence as the transcendent presence of the supernatural

6eing within the natural realm. 4hen this divine presence is understood as

distinctl! transcendent, God$s presence and activit! within the world as

natural is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural. God, then, is

absent from the natural e5cept in specific cases of intervention.

+. 9enosis:ivine self-empt!ing, or withdrawal, of infinite being while present in the

world.

"erms influenced b! the German dealism of 'egel and ;chelling8

). :ialectic

"he presence of contradictor! realities where the contradiction is overcome

 b! including elements from each of the contradictor! elements in a s!nthesis

that is more than the combination of each member of the contradiction.

4hitehead$s understanding of God$s redemption of evil b! placing an evil

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 3/24

event in the conte5t of good events e5presses a similar understanding

although he is not as e5plicit as 'egel in understanding all of realit! as a

dialectical development.

/. Perichoresis

"he ontological intermingling of the members of the "rinit! so that the<ather is part of the ;on and the ;pirit, the ;on part of the ;pirit and <ather,

and the ;pirit part of the <ather and ;on. =oltmann utili#es this concept to

describe the presence of God in the world and the world in God.

"erms influenced b! 4hiteheadian process philosoph!8

). nternal and E5ternal (elations

nternal relations are relations that affect the being of the related beings.

E5ternal relations do not change the basic nature or essence of a being. <or panentheism, the relationship between God and the world is an internal

relationship in that God affects the nature of the world and the world

changes the nature of God. lassical theism affirms an e5ternal relationship

 between God and the world in that God responds to events in the world but

those events do not change God$s essence, necessar! e5istence, or basic

nature.

/. :ipolar 

(efers especiall! to God as having two basic aspects. ;chelling identified

these aspects as necessar! and contingent. 4hitehead referred to God$s primordial and consequent natures meaning that God has an eternal nature

and a responsive nature. 4hitehead understood all realit! to be dipolar in

that each event includes both ph!sical and mental aspects in opposition to a

mind-bod! dualism. 'artshorne identified these aspects as abstract and

concrete.

"erms related to current scientific thought8

). (eductionism

%ll of realit! is one t!pe of e5istence. 7rdinaril! reductionism holds that all

of realit! can be e5plained b! using onl! ph!sical, sub-atomic, entities. %n!

reference to a higher being or cause results from a lack of information about

the ph!sical entities that are involved. =odern reductionism denies the

e5istence of mental realities as a separate t!pe of e5istence. Panentheism

critiques reductionism as an oversimplification of realit! and the e5perience

of realit!.

/. ;upervenience

7ne realit! arises out of another realit!. <or e5ample, mental activit! arises

out of ph!sical realit!. 4hile reductionistic understandings agree that

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 4/24

supervenience occurs, reductionistic supervenience maintains that there are

consistent principles that function in the same wa! at both levels.

Panentheists generall! understand supervenience to give rise to new

 principles that are effective at one level but not present at the simpler level.

. EmergenceEmergence, as the process involved in supervenience, occurs when a new

 propert! arises out of a combination of elements. "he traditional e5ample is

that water emerges out of the combination of o5!gen and h!drogen atoms in

certain proportions. "here are a variet! of t!pes of emergence that have been

identified. n part-whole emergence, the whole is more than the total of all

the parts &orning /00/2. ;trong emergence understands evolution to

 produce new and ontologicall! distinct levels characteri#ed b! their own

laws or regularities and causal forces. 4eak emergence holds that the new

level follows the fundamental causal processes of ph!sics &la!ton /003, *2.;trong emergence is also known as ontological emergence and weak as

epistemological emergence.

3. "op-:own ausation

=ore comple5 levels of ob>ects or events affect less comple5 elements.

ausation is ordinaril! understood as being from the bottom-up meaning

from the simple to the comple5. Ph!sical elements cause other, often more

comple5, ob>ects or events. % common e5ample of top-down causation is the

effect of thought upon a person$s bod!. ;cientists heatedl! debate the

 possibilit! of top-down causation &:avies /0012.+. Entanglement

n quantum theor!, the correlation of two particles that originate in a single

event even though separated from each other b! significant distance.

Entangled ob>ects behave in wa!s that cannot be predicted on the basis of

their individual properties. "he impossibilit! of prediction can be

understood epistemicall! if behavior is considered the result of an average

of man! similar measurements or ontologicall! if behavior results from the

e5istence of the world in an indefinite state prior to measurement. 6oth

6ohr$s indeterministic and 6ohm$s deterministic understandings of quantumtheor! accept this relational understanding of ph!sical processes.

?nderstanding the world as persistent relationships as well as separation

 provides a model based in science for understanding God$s relation to the

world. God$s influence can be present at the level of individual events

although this entanglement would remain hidden from a local perspective.

'owever, the implications of entanglement for concepts of causalit! become

even more comple5 when considering the relation between God and the

world. Polkinghorne suggests that causalit! ma! be active information

rather than an e5change of energ! &/0)0, *2.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 5/24

%lthough numerous meanings have been attributed to the “in” in panentheism

&la!ton /003, /+2, the more significant meanings are8

). @ocative meaning

@ocation that is included in a broader location. <or e5ample, something ma! be located in a certain part of a certain room. ;uch a meaning is problematic

in reference to God because of the common understanding that God is not

limited b! spatial categories. f spatial categories do not appl! to God in

ordinar! usage, to sa! something is located in God becomes problematic.

“n” then takes on special meanings with metaph!sical content or as an

analog! for God$s relationship to the world.

/. =etaph!sical basis for being

6eings come into e5istence and continue to e5ist due to the presence of

divine 6eing. "he concept of participation often includes the understandingthat the world comes into being and continues to e5ist through taking part in

God$s 6eing &la!ton /00A, ))AB))*2.

. =etaph!sical-Epistemological basis for being

Presence in God provides both identit! and being. 9arl 9rause$s

 panentheism asserted a metaph!sical structure that involved both how an

entit! differs from other entities &epistemological identit!2 and what it is in

itself &ontological status2 &GCcke /0)2.

3. =etaph!sical interactive potential

%ctive indeterminac! of commingling unpredictable development of self-organi#ing relations derived from prior actuali#ations &9eller /00, /)*2.

+. Emergence metaphor 

% more comple5 entit! comes from at least a partial source.

1. =indD6od! analogical meaning

"he mind provides structure and direction to the organi#ation of the

organism of the bod!. "he world is God$s bod! in the sense that the world

actuali#es God and manifests God while being directed b! God as different

from the world. =an!, but not all, panentheists utili#e the mindDbod!

analog! to describe the GodDworld relation in a manner that emphasi#es theimmanence of God without loss of God$s transcendence.

. PartD4hole analogical meaning

% particular e5ists in relation to something that is greater and different from

an! and all of its parts. "he world is in God b! participating in God$s being

and action.

2. History

%lthough Panentheism lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection

about God until 9arl 9rause$s &)A)B)A/2 creation of the term in the Eighteenth

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 6/24

centur! &Gregersen /003, /A2, various advocates and critics of panentheism find

evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought

as earl! as )00 6E. 'artshorne discovers the first indication of panentheistic

themes in khnaton &)+B)+A 6E2, the Eg!ptian pharaoh often considered the

first monotheist. n his poetic description of the sun god, khnaton avoids both theseparation of God from the world that will characteri#e traditional theism and the

identification of God with the world that will characteri#e pantheism &'artshorne

)*+, /*B02. Earl! Fedantic thought implies panentheism in non-%dvaita forms

that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences. %lthough there are te5ts

referring to 6rahman as contracted and identical to 6rahman, other te5ts speak of

6rahman as e5panded. n these te5ts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of 

imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. %lthough not the dominant

interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present

in the Upanishads &4hittemore )*AA, , 3)B332. 'artshorne finds additionalreligious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a

wa! that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in @ao-"se

&fourth centur! 6E2 and in the udeo-hristian scriptures &)*+, /BA2.

n philosophical reflection, Plato &3/D3/AB3AD3 6E2 pla!s a role in the

development of implicit panentheism although there is disagreement about the

nature of that role. 'artshorne drew a dipolar understanding of God that includes

 both immutabilit! and mutabilit! from Plato. 'artshorne understood Plato$s

concept of the divine to include the <orms as pure and unchanging being and the4orld soul as changing and in motion. %lthough he concluded that Plato never

reconciled these two elements in his understanding of the divine, both aspects were

 present &)*+, +32. ooper, instead, thinks that Plato retained an essential

distinction between the Good and the other beings that Plato called gods.

%ccording to ooper, Plotinus &/03B/0 E2 rather than Plato provided the basis

for panentheism with his description of the ph!sical world as an emanation of

 being from the 7ne making the world part of the ?ltimate &/001, +B*2. 6alt#l!

finds evidence in the Timaeus of a pol!theistic view that can be identified as

 panentheistic &/0)02.

<rom Plato to ;chelling &)+B)A+3 E2, various theologians and philosophers

developed ideas that are similar to themes in contemporar! panentheism. "hese

ideas developed as e5pressions of traditional theism. Proclus &3)/B3A+ E2 and

Pseudo-:ion!sus &late <ifth to earl! ;i5th centur!2 drawing upon Plotinus

developed perspectives that included the world in God and understood the

relationship between God and the world as a dialectical relationship &ooper /001,

3/B312. n the =iddle %ges, the influence of Heoplatonism continued in the

thought of Eriugena &A)+BA E2, Eckhart &)/10B)/A E2, Hicholas of usa&)30)B)313 E2, and 6oehme &)++B)1/3 E2. %lthough accused of pantheism

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 7/24

 b! their contemporaries, their s!stems can be identified as panentheistic because

the! understood God in various wa!s as including the world rather than being the

world and because the! used a dialectical method. "he dialectical method involved

the generation of opposites and then the reconciliation of the opposition in God.

"his retained the distinct identit! of God in God$s influence of the world &ooper/001, 3B1/2. :uring the earl! modern period, 6runo &)+3AB)100 E2 and

;pino#a &)1)B)1 E2 responded to the dualism of traditional theism b!

emphasi#ing the relationship between God and the world to the point that the

nature of an! ontological distinction between God and the world became

 problematic. @ater thinkers such as the ambridge Platonists &;eventeenth

centur!2, onathan Edwards &)0B)+A E2 &risp /00*2, and <riedrich

;chleiermacher &)1AB)A3 E2 thought of the world as in some wa! in God or a

development from God. %lthough the! did not stress the ontological distinction

 between God and the world, the! did emphasi#e the responsive relationship thathumans have to God. 'uman responsiveness assumed some degree of human

initiative if not freedom, which indicates some distinction between God and

humans. "he assumption of some degree of human initiative was a reaction against

the loss of freedom due to ;pino#a$s close identification between God and the

world &ooper /001, 13B*02.

"he nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the development of panentheism as a

specific position regarding God$s relationship to the world. "he awareness of

 panentheism as an alternative to theism and pantheism developed out of a comple5of approaches. Philosophical idealism and philosophical adaptation of the scientific

concept of evolution provided the basic sources of the e5plicit position of

 panentheism. Philosophical approaches appl!ing the concept of development to

God reached their most complete e5pression in process philosoph!$s understanding

of God being affected b! the events of the world.

'egel &)0B)A)2 and ;chelling &)+B)A+32 sought to retain the close

relationship between God and the world that ;pino#a proposed without identif!ing

God with the world. "heir concept of God as developing in and through the world provided the means for accomplishing this. Prior to this time, God had been

understood as unchanging and the world as changing while e5isting in God

&ooper /001, *02. ;chelling$s understanding of God as personal provided the basis

for the unit! of the diversit! in the world in a manner that was more open than

'egel$s understanding. ;chelling emphasi#ed the freedom of the creatures in

relation to the necessit! of God$s nature as love. <or ;chelling, God$s free

unfolding of God$s internal sub>ective necessit! did not result in an e5ternal

empirical necessit! determining the world &la!ton /000, 332. "his relationship

resulted in vitalit! and on-going development. 'artshorne classified this as adipolar understanding of God in that God is both necessar! and developing &)*+,

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 8/24

/32. ooper describes ;chelling$s thought as d!namic cooperative panentheism

&/001, *+2. 'egel found ;chelling inadequate and sought a greater unit! for the

diversit!. 'e united <ichte$s sub>ective idealism and ;chelling$s ob>ective idealism

to provide a metaph!sics of sub>ectivit! rather than substance &la!ton /00A, )/+.

'egel$s unification of <ichte and ;chelling resulted in a more comprehensive andconsistent s!stem still based upon change in God. God as well as nature is

characteri#ed b! dialectical development. n his re>ection of pantheism, 'egel

understood the infinite as including the finite b! absorbing the finite into its own

fuller nature. "his retained divine transcendence in the sense of the divine

surpassing its parts although not separate from the parts &4hittemore )*10, )3)B 

)3/2. "he divine transcendence provided unit! through the development of the

%bsolute through histor!. 9arl 9rause &)A)B)A/2 in )A/A labeled ;chelling$s and

'egel$s positions as “panentheism” in order to emphasi#e their differences from

;pino#a$s identification of God with the world &(eese /00A, )2. ooper describes'egel$s panentheism as dialectical historical panentheism &/001, )02.

%s :arwin$s theor! of evolution introduced histor! into the conceptuali#ation of

 biolog!, ;amuel %le5ander &)A+*B)*A2, 'enri 6ergson &)A+*B)*3)2, and .

@lo!d =organ &)A+/B)*12 introduced development into the wa!s in which all of

 ph!sical realit! was conceptuali#ed. "he! then worked out positions that in a

variet! of wa!s understood God and the world as growing in relationship to each

other. %lthough 'artshorne$s classification of “panentheism” did not include

%le5ander in the categor! of “panentheism,” onl! occasionall! mentioned6ergson, and made no reference to =organ, 4hitehead referred to all three of

these thinkers positivel!. %lthough it ma! be too strong to claim that the!

influenced 4hitehead &Emmett )**/2, the! did provide the background for

4hitehead$s and then 'artshorne$s s!stematic development of process philosoph!

as an e5pression of panentheism. 'artshorne populari#ed the modern use of the

term “panentheism” and considered 4hitehead to be the outstanding panentheist

&'artshorne )*+, /2. %lthough 'artshorne made several modifications to

4hitehead$s understanding of God, the basic structures of 4hitehead$s thought

were continued in 'artshorne$s further development of 4hitehead$s philosoph!&<ord )*, obb, )*1+2. God, for process philosoph!, is necessar! for an! actual

world. 4ithout God, the world would be nothing more than a static, unchanging

e5istence radicall! different from the actual world of e5perience. God as both

eternal and temporal provides possibilities that call the world to change and

develop. God as eternal provides an actual source of those possibilities. 'owever,

if God is onl! eternal, the possibilities would be unrelated to the actual world as it

 presentl! e5ists. "hus, 4hitehead and 'artshorne understand the world to be

 present in God in order for the possibilities that lead to development to be related

to the world &'artshorne )*+, /2. "he implication of God$s inclusion of theworld is that God is present to the world and the world influences God. %lthough

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 9/24

the presence of the world in God could be understood as a form of pantheism,

 process philosoph! avoids collapsing the world into God or God into the world b!

maintaining a distinction between God and the world. "his distinction is manifest

in the eternalit! of God and the temporalit! of the world. t is also apparent in the

freedom of the events in the world. %lthough God presents possibilities to theevents in the world, each event “decides” how it will actuali#e those possibilities.

"he freedom of each event, the absence of divine determination, provides a wa!

for process thought to avoid God being the cause of evil or containing evil as evil.

;ince God includes the events of the world, God will include the evil as well as the

good that occurs in the world and this evil will affect God since the world affects

God$s actuali#ation. 6ut, because God does not determine the response of each

event to the possibilities that God presents, an! event ma! re>ect God$s purpose of

good through the intensification of e5perience and actuali#e a less intense

e5perience. God does take this less intense, evil, e5perience into God$s self, butredeems that evil b! means of relating it to the wa!s in which good has been

actuali#ed. "hus, God saves what can be saved from the world rather than simpl!

including each event in isolation from other events &ooper /001, )3, )A02.

3. Recent Developments

Protestant theologians have contributed to recent developments of panentheism b!

continuing the German dealist tradition or the tradition of process philosoph!.

%lthough the ma>orit! of the contemporar! e5pressions of panentheism involvescientists and protestant theologians or philosophers, articulations of forms of

 panentheism have developed among feminists, in the (oman atholic tradition, in

the 7rthodo5 tradition, and in religions other than hristianit!.

?tili#ing resources from the tradition of German dealism, Irgen =oltmann

developed a form of panentheism in his earl! work, The ruci!ied "od  in )*3

&)*/ for the German original2, where he said that the suffering and renewal of all

humanit! are taken into the life of the "riune God. 'e e5plicated his understanding

of panentheism more full! in The Trinit# and the $in%dom in )*A). "heological

concerns motivate =oltmann$s concept of panentheism. Panentheism avoids the

arbitrar! concept of creation held b! traditional theism and the loss of creaturel!

freedom that occurs in hristian pantheism &ooper /001, /3A2. =oltmann

understands panentheism to involve both God in the world and the world in God.

"he relationship between God and the world is like the relationship among the

members of the "rinit! in that it involves relationships and communities &=olnar

)**0, 132. =oltmann uses the concept of perichoresis to describe this relationship

of mutual interpenetration. 6! using the concept of perichoresis, =oltmann moves

awa! from a 'egelian understanding of the trinit! as a dialectical development in

histor! &ooper /001, /+)2. "he relationship between God and the world develops

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 10/24

 because of God$s nature as love that seeks the other and the free response of the

other &=olnar )**0, 12. =oltmann does not consider creation necessar! for God

nor the result of an! inner divine compulsion. nstead creation is the result of God$s

essential activit! as love rather than the result of God$s self-determination &=olnar,

)**0, 1*2. "his creation occurs in a process of interaction between nothingnessand creativit!, contraction and e5pansion, in God. 6ecause there is no “outside” of

God due to God$s infinit!, God must withdraw in order for creation to e5ist.

9enosis, or God$s self-empt!ing, occurs in creation as well as in the incarnation.

"he nothing in the doctrine of “creation from nothing” is the primordial result of

God$s contraction of God$s essential infinit! &ooper, /001, /32. =oltmann finds

that panentheism as mutual interpenetration preserves unit! and difference in a

variet! of differences in kind such as God and human being, person and nature, and

the spiritual and the sensuous &=oltmann, 1&&' , 02.

?tili#ing process philosoph!, :avid (a! Griffin assumes that scientific

understandings of the world are crucial and recogni#es the implications of

scientific understanding for theolog!. 'owever, his concept of panentheism builds

on the principles of process philosoph! rather than scientific concepts directl!.

Griffin traces modern atheism to the combination of understanding perception as

e5clusivel! based on ph!sical sensations, accepting a naturalistic e5planation of

realit!, and identif!ing matter as the onl! realit!. 6ut, the emergence of mind

challenges the adequac! of this contemporar! worldview &/003, 30B3)2. 'e claims

that the traditional supernaturalistic form of theism with its emphasis upon thedivine will does not provide an adequate alternative to the atheism of the late

modern worldview because God becomes the source of evil. Griffin argues that

traditional theism makes God the source of evil because God$s will establishes the

general principles of the universe &/003, 2. Process panentheism provides a wa!

to avoid the problems of both traditional theism and materialistic naturalism &/003,

3/2. Griffin substitutes pane5perientialism for materialism and a doctrine of

 perception that bases sensor! perception on a non-sensor! mode of perception in

order to e5plain both the mind-bod! interaction and the God-world interaction.

God is numericall! distinct from the world but is ontologicall! the same avoidingdualism and supernaturalism. God and events in the world interact through non-

sensor! perception &/003, 33B3+2. "hrough this interaction, God can influence but

not determine the world, and the world can influence God$s concrete states without

changing God$s essence. Process panentheism recogni#es two aspects of the divine,

an abstract and unchanging essence and a concrete state that involves change.

"hrough this dipolar concept, God both influences and is influenced b! the world

&/003, 3B332. Griffin understands God as essentiall! the soul of the universe

although distinct from the world. "he idea of God as the soul of the world stresses

the intimac! and direct relationship of God$s relationship to the world, not theemergence of the soul from the world &/003, 332. (elationalit! is part of the divine

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 11/24

essence, but this does not mean that this specific world is necessar! to God. "his

world came into e5istence from relative nothingness. "his relative nothingness was

a chaos that lacked an! individual that sustained specific characteristics over time.

'owever, even in the chaos prior to the creation of this world, events had some

degree of self-determination and causal influence upon subsequent events. "hesefundamental causal principles along with God e5ist naturall! since these causal

 principles are inherent in things that e5ist including the nature of God. "he

 principles cannot be broken because such an interruption would be a violation of

God$s nature. %n important implication of the two basic causal principles, a degree

of self-determination and causal influence, is that God influences but does not

determine other events &/003, 32. Griffin$s understanding of naturalism allows for

divine action that is formall! the same in all events. 6ut this divine action can

occur in a variable manner so that some acts are especiall! revelator! of the divine

character and purpose &/003, 3+2.

=uch of the contemporar! discussion and development of panentheism occurs in

the conte5t of the science and religion discussion. "he earl! modern concept of an

unchanging natural order posed a challenge to understandings of divine action in

the world. "he current discussion draws on the development of scientific

information about the natural world that can contribute to religious efforts to

e5plain how God acts in the world. n the contemporar! discussion, %rthur

Peacocke and Paul :avies have made important contributions as scientists

interested in, and knowledgeable about, religion. Peacocke developed hisunderstanding of panentheism beginning in )** and continuing through works in

/00), /003, and /001. Peacocke starts with the shift in the scientific understanding

of the world from a mechanism to the current understandings of the world as a

unit! composed of comple5 s!stems in a hierarch! of different levels. "hese

emergent levels do not become different t!pes of realit! but instead compose a

unit! that can be understood naturall! as an emergentist monism. %t the same time,

the different levels of comple5it! cannot be reduced to an e5planation of one t!pe

or level of comple5it!. "he creative d!namic of the emergence of comple5it! in

hierarchies is immanent in the world rather than e5ternal to the world &Peacocke/003, )B)3/2. ;imilarl!, Paul :avies describes the universe b! talking about

comple5it! and higher levels of organi#ation in which participant observers bring

about a more precise order &/002. %n important scientific aspect of this concept of 

comple5it! and organi#ation is the notion of entanglement especiall! conceptual

level entanglement &:avies /001, 3+B3A2. %gain, the organi#ation, which makes

life possible, is an internal, or natural, order rather than an order imposed from

outside of the universe &:avies /0032. Peacocke draws upon this contemporar!

scientific understanding of the universe to think about the relationship between

God and the natural world. 'e re>ects an! understanding of God as e5ternal tonature whether it is a traditional theistic understanding where God intervenes in the

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 12/24

natural world or a deistic understanding where God initiates the natural world but

does not continue to be active in the world. <or Peacocke, God continuousl!

creates through the processes of the natural order. God$s active involvement is not

an additional, e5ternal influence upon events. 'owever, God is not identified with

the natural processes, which are the action of God as reator &Peacocke /003, )3B )332. Peacocke identifies his understanding of God$s relation to the world as

 panentheism because of its re>ection of dualism and e5ternal interactions b! God in

favor of God alwa!s working from inside the universe. %t the same time, God

transcends the universe because God is infinitel! more than the universe. "his

 panentheistic model combines a stronger emphasis upon God$s immanence with

God$s ultimate transcendence over the universe b! using a model of personal

agenc! &Peacocke /003, )3B)+)2. :avies also refers to his understanding of the

role of laws in nature as panentheism rather than deism because God chose laws

that give a co-creative role to nature &/003, )03 ()

Philip la!ton begins with contemporar! scientific understandings of the world

and combines them with theological concepts drawn from a variet! of sources

including process theolog!. 'e describes God$s relationship with the world as an

internal rather than an e5ternal relationship. ?nderstanding God$s relationship as

internal to the world recogni#es the validit! of modern scientific understandings

that do not require an! e5ternal source in order to account for the order in the

world. %t the same time, God$s internal presence provides the order and regularit!

that the world manifests &/00), /0AB/)02. la!ton agrees that the world is in Godand God is in the world. Panentheism, according to him, affirms the

interdependence of God and the world &/003b, A2. "his affirmation became

 possible as a result of the re>ection of substantialistic language, which e5cludes all

other beings from an! one being. (e>ection of substantialistic language thus allows

for the interaction of beings. la!ton cites 'egel$s recognition that the logic of the

infinite requires the inclusion of the finite in the infinite and points towards the

 presence of the world in God &la!ton /003b, AB*2. la!ton, along with oseph

6racken &)*3, /0032, identifies his understanding of panentheism as "rinitarian

and kenotic &la!ton /00+, /++2. t is "rinitarian because the world participates inGod in a manner analogous to the wa! that members of the trinit! participate in

each other although the world is not and does not become God. God freel! decides

to limit God$s infinite power in an act of kenosis in order to allow for the e5istence

of non-divine realit!. "he divine kenotic decision results in the actualit! of the

world that is taken into God. 6ut, for la!ton, God$s inclusion of finite being as

actual is contingent upon God$s decision rather than necessar! to God$s essence

&/00, /)32. la!ton affirms creation from nothing as a description of creaturel!

e5istence prior to God$s decision. "he involvement of the world in an internal

relationship with God does not completel! constitute the divine being for la!ton.nstead, God is both primordial, or eternal, and responsive to the world. "he world

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 13/24

does constitute God$s relational aspect but not the totalit! of God &/00+, /+0B/+32.

"he best wa! to describe the interdependence between God and the world for

la!ton is through the concept of emergence. Emergence ma! be e5planator!,

epistemological, or ontological. 7ntological understandings of emergence, which

la!ton supports, hold that )2 realit! is made up one t!pe of being, ph!sicale5istence, rather than two or more t!pes of being but this ph!sicalit! does not

mean that onl! ph!sical ob>ects e5ist because, /2 properties emerge in ob>ects from

the potentialit! of an ob>ect that cannot be previousl! identified in the ob>ect$s parts

or structure, 2 the emergence of new properties give rise to distinct levels of

causal relations, which leads to 32 downward causation of the emergent level upon

 prior levels &/001a, /B32. Emergence recogni#es that change is important to the

nature of the world and challenges static views of God &la!ton /001b, /02.

% number of feminist contribute to the development of panentheism b! critiquingtraditional understandings of transcendence for continuing dualistic wa!s of

thinking. <eminist panentheists conceive of the divine as continuous with the

world rather than being ontologicall! transcendent over the world &<rankenberr!

/0))2. ;allie =c<ague$s use of metaphors in both theolog! and science led her to

describe the world as God$s bod!. =c<ague bases the metaphorical nature of all

statements about God upon panenethiesm &/00), 02. <urther more, for =c<ague,

 panentheism sees the world as in God which puts God$s name first but includes

each person$s name and preserves their distinctiveness in the divine realit! &/00),

+2. God$s glor! becomes manifest in God$s total self-giving to the world so thattranscendence becomes immanence rather than being understood as God$s power

manifest in distant control of the world. Grace ant#en also uses the metaphor of

the world as God$s bod!. %dditionall!, ant#en &)**A2 and ;chaab &/002 have

 proposed metaphors about the womb and midwifer! to describe God$s relation to

the world. %nna aseB4inters challenges =c<ague$s metaphor of the world as

God$s bod!. aseB4inters acknowledges that his metaphor maintains God$s

 personal nature, offers a coherent wa! to talk about God$s knowledge of and action

in the world, recogni#es God$s vulnerable suffering love, and revalues nature and

embodiment. 6ut at least =c<ague$s earl! use of the world-as-God$s-bod!metaphor tended towards pantheism and even her later introduction of an agential

role for the divine still retains the possibilit! of the loss of the identit! of the world.

aseB4inters uses =c:aniel$s &)*A*2 distinction between emanational and

relationsal understandings of God$s immanence in the world to establish a form of

 panentheism with a clearer distinction between God and the world. "he world is an

“other” in relation to God rather than being a direct e5pression of God$s own being

through emanation for aseB4inters &0B/2. <rankenberr! contrasts =c<ague$s

and aseB4inter$s two concepts of transcendence to the traditional hierarchical

concept of transcendence. =c<ague$s concept is one of total immanence whileaseB4inters holds a dialectic between individual transcendence and immanence

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 14/24

&/0))2. <rankenberr! suggests that pantheism ma! provide a more direct

repudiation of male domination than panentheism provides &)**2.

"he feminist discussion about the adequac! of the metaphor of the world as God$s

 bod! pla!s a role in the broader panentheistic discussion about how to describe therelationship between God and the world and the adequac! of the specific

metaphors that have been used. =an! panentheists find that metaphors provide the

most adequate wa! to understand God$s relation to the world. =c<ague argues that

an! attempt to do theolog! requires the use of metaphor &/00), 02. la!ton

 proposes different levels of metaphor as the most adequate wa! to reconcile the

conflict between divine action and the integrit! of the created realm &/00, /0A2.

<or Peacocke, the limitation of language requires the use of models and metaphors

in describing either God or the cosmos &;chabb /00A, )2. "he dominant metaphor 

in panentheism has been the world as God$s bod!. "he primar! ob>ection to theworld as God$s bod! is the substantialistic implications of the term “bod!” that lead

either to an ontological separation between the world and God or to a loss of

identit! for God or the world. 6racken proposes a "rinitarian field theor! to

e5plain the world$s presence in God. "he world is a large but finite field of activit!

within the allBcomprehensive field of activit! constituted b! the three divine

 persons in ongoing relations with each other and with all the creation &/00*, )+*2.

6racken accepts that other metaphors have been utili#ed but concludes that the

world as God$s bod! and field theor! have proven the most helpful. 'owever, more

clearl! metaph!sical panentheistic understandings of God$s relation to the worldhave been articulated. ;chelling$s German dealism understood God as freel!

unfolding as emanation b! introducing sub>ectivit!. "here is no ontological

separation between God and the world because the world participates in the infinite

as its source &la!ton /000, 3B3A)2. 9rause understood the world$s participation

in God both ontologicall! and epistemicall!. "he particularit! of each e5istent

 being depends upon the %bsolute for its e5istence as what it is &GCcke /0)2. "he

metaph!sical concept of participation occurs as a description of world$s relation to

God but lacks precision and can be understood either metaphoricall! or literall!.

9eller offers another metaph!sical understanding b! arguing for creation out ofchaos. ;he re>ects substance metaph!sics and describes the relation between God

and the world as a comple5 relationalit! involving an active indeterminac! and

 past realities &/00, /)*2. <inall! the science and religion discussion provides

another metaph!sical understanding b! drawing upon scientific concepts such as

supervenience, emergence, downward causation, and entanglement to provide a

ground for theological concepts e5plaining God$s relation to the world.

%lthough most of the advocates for panentheism work in the conte5t of hristian

 belief or responses to hristian belief, indications of panentheism in other religionshave been recogni#ed especiall! in the Fedic tradition. 'artshorne in his discussion

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 15/24

of panentheism included a section on 'induism &)*+2. "he concept of the world

as the bod! of the divine offers a strong similarit! to 4estern panentheism.

"he "ita identifies the whole world, including all the gods and living creatures, as

the :ivine bod!. 6ut the :ivine 6eing has its own bod! that contains the world

while being more than the world. 4hile the ?panishads acknowledge the bod! ofthe :ivine at times, the bod! of the divine is never identified as the cosmos. =ost

of the "antrics hold a pantheistic view in which the practitioner is a manifestation

of the divine. %bhinavagupta, in the tenth centur!, provided the first panentheistic

understanding of the world as God$s bod!. <or him, differentiation is ;hiva

concealing his wholeness. %bhinavagupta also insisted that ;hiva transcends the

cosmos &6ilimoria and ;tansell /0)0, /33B/+A2. %bhinavagupta and 'artshorne

think of the :ivine as immanent in the world and as changing but the! understood

God$s mutabilit! in different wa!s &;tansell and Phillips /0)0, )A2. (amunu>a in

the twelfth centur! also considered the world to be God$s bod! and the thoughts ofultimate realit!, individual selves, and the cosmos as identical &4ard /003, 1/ and

la!ton /0)0, )AB)A*2.

4. Criticisms and Responses

n spite of more than one hundred !ears of development, panentheism continues to

grow and change. =uch of this growth has taken place as a result of advances in

science. %nother impetus for change has been criticisms raised b! the ma>or

alternatives to panentheistic understandings of the God-world relation.Panentheism faces challenges both from those who find that an! lessening of the

emphasis upon divine transcendence to be inadequate and from those who find

some form of pantheism more adequate than an! distinction between God and the

world. <inall!, the variet! of the versions of panentheism have led to an active

internal discussion among the various versions.

6oth pantheists and scientists working with naturalist assumptions critici#e

 panentheism for its metaph!sical claim that there is a being above or other than the

natural world. %t times, this criticism has been made b! claiming that a thorough-

going naturalism does not need a transcendent, individuali#ed realit!. orrington

describes the development of his thought as a growing awareness that panentheism

unnecessaril! introduces a being above nature as well as in nature &/00/, 3*2.

:rees e5presses a similar criticism b! arguing that all contemporar! e5planations

of human agenc!, including non-reductionist e5planations, are naturalistic and do

not require an! reference to a higher being. <or panentheists to claim that divine

agenc! is analogous to human agenc! fails both to recogni#e that human agenc!

requires no additional source or cause and to e5plain how a divine source of being

could act in the realm of ph!sical and mental processes &)***2. <rankenberr!

makes this ob>ection more specific. Panentheism offers a more comple5

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 16/24

relationship between God and the world than is necessar!. "his unnecessar!

comple5it! is revealed b! the problems that panentheism has with the logic of the

freedom of parts in wholistic relations, the possibilit! of the bod!-soul analog!

relapsing into gender inflected ideas of the soul as the male principle, the problem

with simultaneit! of events in the divine e5perience in relation to the principle ofthe relativit! of time, the necessit! of the everlasting nature of value, and finall!

the use of the ontological argument to establish the necessit! of the abstract pole of 

the divine nature &)**, 1B*2. Gillett points out that panentheism lacks an

e5planation for a causal efficac! higher than the causal efficac! reali#ed b!

microph!sical causation &/00, )*2. Generall!, panentheists respond to these

criticisms b! affirming the inadequac! both scientificall! and metaph!sicall! of

an! t!pe of reductionistic naturalism. ;uch a naturalism whether articulated in

scientific categories or religious categories fails to recogni#e the emergence of

levels of comple5it! in nature. "he emergence of higher levels of organi#ation thatcannot be completel! e5plained in terms of lower levels renders non-differentiated

accounts of being inadequate. Panentheists often argue that the emergence of

higher levels of order makes possible downward causation. :avies describes the

difficulties in coming to a clear description of downward causation and concludes

that the comple5it! of s!stems open to the environment makes room for downward

causation but has not !et provided an e5planation of how downward causation

works &/001, 3A2. "he concepts of entanglement and divine entanglement ma!

offer new perspective on causation and especiall! the role of the divine in natural

causation &4egterB=cnell! /0))2.

(ather than critici#ing an unnecessar! transcendence, traditional theism charges

 panentheism with an inadequate transcendence due to failing to distinguish God

from the world. Grounds recogni#ed that panentheists hold that God includes the

world but is not identical to the world. raig recogni#es that la!ton claims that

God is infinite. 6ut Grounds describes 'artshorne$s distinction between God and

the world as a distinction that is not consistentl! held because 'artshorne includes

accidents within God$s nature. Grounds argues that according to 'artshorne God

would cease to be if the world ceased to e5ist. ;uch a position lacks an adequatedistinction between God and the world since God and the world are interdependent

&Grounds, )*0, )+32. raig challenges the understanding of the term “infinite”

within panentheistic thought b! arguing that understanding the infinite as including

all realit! in a monistic sense confuses the definition of “infinite” with identif!ing

what is infinite &/001, )2. Even though la!ton seeks to retain a distinction

 between God and the world, he fails to be consistent because he fails to recogni#e

that “infinite” is an umbrella concept that captures all the qualities that identif!

God as the perfect being rather than identif!ing God as an absolutel! unlimited

realit! &raig /001, )3/B)+02. (owe responds to raig b! arguing that la!tonwould re>ect understanding the distinction between God and the world as requiring

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 17/24

that the world limits God b! being distinct. nstead, distinct from God means

having an essential propert! that God lacks or lacking an essential propert! that

God has which agrees with raig$s notion of the infinite as an umbrella concept

&(owe /00, 12. la!ton describes the infinite as present in finite minds although

ungraspable &/00A, )+/2. Fail finds that 9eller$s panentheism blurs the line between the cosmic and the divine leading to a distinction of degree rather than of

qualit! &/0)/, )13, )2.

"he basic response of panentheists to these criticisms that the distinction between

God and the world cannot be maintained is a dipolar concept of God. n a dipolar

understanding of God, the essence of God is different from the world because God

is infinite and the world is finite God is everlasting and the world is temporal.

Griffin additionall! affirms the numerical difference between God and the world

even though there is no ontological difference of kind &/003, 33B3+2. ooperrecogni#es that the panentheist does actuall! describe a distinction between God

and the world but critici#es panentheism because it does not hold an unqualified

ontological distinction between God and the world. 7nl! an ontological distinction

 between God and the world makes it possible to identif! and affirm God$s saving

 presence. %ccording to ooper, if God$s transcendence does not infinitel! e5ceed

God$s immanence, God$s presence, knowledge, and power are limited rather than

complete, immediate, and unconditioned. ooper recogni#es that prioriti#ing

divine transcendence raises the problem of evil but thinks that God$s unlimited

 power provides hope that God will provide an ultimate solution to the problem ofevil. "he basic issue for traditional theism is that panentheism understands a

 balance between transcendence and immanence to involve the world influencing

and affecting God. f God is affected b! the world, then God is considered

incapable of providing salvation &ooper /001, //B/A2. Peacocke and Eastern

7rthodo5 thinkers &@outh /003, )A3 Hesteruk /003, )B)1 4are /003, )12

respond b! affirming a weak form of emergence in which the world does not affect

God. la!ton and 6racken respond b! maintaining that the world does influence

God but God$s will, e5pressed through the decisions that God makes, protects

God$s abilit! to save &la!ton /00+2. =oltmann describes God$s essence asdirecting God$s activit! in order to maintain the reliabilit! of God as love acting on

 behalf of creation. =oltmann does not find it necessar! to protect divine freedom

 b! giving it priorit! over divine love but rather understands freedom as acting

according to the divine nature of love &=oltmann )*A), *A, **2. ooper also

critici#es panentheism for holding a concept of God that can save through the

general processes of nature but not in an! distinctive wa!. Fanhoo#er$s concern for

divine freedom is based on a similar concern &)**A, /+02. 6ut, Griffin$s discussion

of divine variable action does allow for specific and distinctive manifestations of

divine love &/003, 3+2. ?ltimatel!, the panentheist response is that God$s nature aslove directs God$s actions bringing salvation. God$s nature as love is the crucial

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 18/24

aspect of divine action rather than a causal efficac!. "he emphasis of traditional

theism on divine will misses that the divine will is directed b! divine love. ;ome

responses b! traditional theists have claimed that traditional theism is not guilt! of

separating God from the world and thus panentheism is not needed as a corrective

&arroll /00A, <inger )**2. 4ildman acknowledges that traditional theism doeshold that God has a meaningful presence in the world but has an inadequate

ontological basis for that presence. %n adequate basis for the active presence of

God int he world requires some role for the world in the constitution of God

&4ildman /0)), )A12.

"he varieties of panentheism participate in internal criticism. la!ton &/00A, )/2

and rain &/0012 emphasi#e the dependence of the world upon God rather than the

dependence of God upon the world although the! maintain that God is influenced,

and changed, b! the world. "he! critici#e understandings of God that limit God b!making God sub>ect to metaph!sical principles. Griffin emphasi#es the regularit!

 provided b! metaph!sical principles. "his regularit! recogni#es the order in realit!

that the reliabilit! of God$s love provides. Panentheists also caution that the

emphasis upon the ontological nature of the relation between God and the world

can lead to a loss of the integrit! of the world. (ichardson warns against losing the

discrete identit! of finite beings in God &/0)0, 3+2. ase-4inters calls for

maintaining a balance between the distinction between God and the world and

God$s involvement with the world. 7verBemphasis upon either side of the balance

leads to positions that are philosophicall! and theologicall! inadequate &aseB 4inters /00, )/+2.

Bibliography

• 6alt#l!, :irk, /0)0, “s Plato$s "imaeus PanentheisticJ”, *ophia, 3*8 )*B 

/)+.

• 6ilimoria, Purushottma and ;tansell, Ellen, /0)0, “;uturing the 6od!

orporate &:ivine and 'uman2 in the 6rahmanic "raditions”, *ophia, 3*8 /B 

/+*.

• 6racken, oseph %., )*+, “Panentheism from a "rinitarian

Perspective”, +orions, //8 B/A.

•  BBB, /003, “Panentheism8 % <ield-7riented %pproach”, in -n .hom .e /ive

and ove and +ave ur ein% , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids,

=8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. /))B//).

•  BBB, /00*, “4hitehead and (oman atholics8 4hat 4ent4rongJ”, merican ournal o! Theolo%# and hilosoph#, 08)+B)1.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 19/24

• ase-4inters, %nna, /00, 6econstructin% a hristian Theolo%# o! 7ature,

6urlington, F"8 %shgate.

• la!ton, Philip, /000, The roblem o! "od in odern Thou%ht , Grand

(apids, =8 Eerdmans.

•  BBB, /00), “Panentheist nternalism8 @iving within the Presence of the

"rinitarian God”, Dialo% , 308 /0AB/)+.

•  BBB, /00, “God and 4orld”, in The ambrid%e ompanion to ostmodern

Theolo%#, 9evin . Fanhoo#er &ed.2, ambridge8 ambridge ?niversit! Press, pp.

/0B/)A.

•

 BBB, /003b, “Panentheism in =etaph!sical and ;cientific Perspective”, in -n.hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s

 resence in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids,

=8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. B*).

•  BBB, /003c, ind and :mer%ence From uantum to onsciousness,

75ford8 75ford ?niversit! Press.

•  BBB, /00+, “9enotic trinitarian panentheism”, Dialo% , 338 /+0B/++.

•  BBB, /001a, “onceptual <oundations of Emergence "heor!,” in The 6e<

 :mer%ence o! :mer%ence The :mer%entist +#pothesis !rom *cience to 6eli%ion, P.

la!ton and P. :avies &eds.2, 75ford8 75ford ?niversit! Press, pp. )B).

•  BBB, /001b, “Emergence from Kuantum Ph!sics to (eligion8 % ritical

%ppraisal”, in The 6e<:mer%ence o! :mer%ence The :mer%entist +#pothesis !rom

*cience to 6eli%ion, P. la!ton and P. :avies &eds.2, 75ford8 75ford ?niversit!

Press, pp. 0B//.

•  BBB, /00A, dventures in the *pirit "od, .orld, Divine ction,=inneapolis8 <ortress Press.

•  BBB, /0)0, “Panentheisms East and 4est”, *ophia, 3*8 )AB)*).

• la!ton, Philip and Peacocke, %rthur, &eds.2, /003a, -n .hom .e /ive and

 ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s resence in a

*cienti!ic .orld , Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans.

• obb, ohn 6., r., )*1+,  hristian 7atural Theolo%#, ased on theThou%ht o! l!red 7orth .hitehead , Philadelphia8 4estminster Press.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 20/24

• ooper, ohn 4., /001, anentheism The ther "od o! the hilosophers

 From lato to the resent , Grand (apids, =8 6aker %cademic.

• orning, Peter %., /00/, “"he (e-emergence of LEmergenceM8 % Fenerable

oncept in ;earch of a "heor!”, omple=it#, 8 )AB0.

• orrington, (obert ;., /00/, “=! Passage from Panentheism to

Pantheism”, merican ournal o! Theolo%# > hilosoph#, /8 )/*B)+.

• raig, 4. @., /001, “Pantheists in spite of "hemselves” in For Faith and

larit#, .9. 6eilb! &ed.2, Grand (apids, =8 6aker %cademic, pp. )+B)+1.

• rain, ;teven :., /001, “God Embodied in, God 6od!ing <orth the 4orld8

Emergence and hristian "heolog!”, ?#%on, 3)8 1++B1.

• risp, 7liver, /00*, “onathan Edwards on the divine nature”, ournal o!

 6e!ormed Theolo%#, 8 )+B/0).

• :avies, Paul, /003, “"eleolog! without "eleolog!8 Purpose through

Emergent omple5it!”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein%

 anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s resence in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and

%. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. *+B)0A.

•  BBB, /001, “"he Ph!sics of :ownward ausation”, in The 6e<:mer%ence o! 

 :mer%ence The :mer%entist +#pothesis !rom *cience to 6eli%ion, P. la!ton and

P. :avies &eds.2, 75ford, 75ford ?niversit! Press, pp. +B+/.

• :avies, P. . 4., /00, osmic ac@pot .h# ur Universe -s ust 6i%ht !or 

 /i!e, 6oston8 'oughton =ifflin.

• :rees, 4illem 6., )***, “God and ontemporar! ;cience8 Philip la!ton$s

:efense of Panentheism”, ?#%on, 38 +)+B+/+.

• Emmett, :oroth!, )**/, “4hitehead and %le5ander”, rocess *tudies, 8

)B)3A.

• <ord, @ewis, &ed.2, )*, TAo rocess hilosophers +artshorne9s

 :ncounter Aith .hitehead , "allahassee, <@8 %merican %cadem! of (eligion.

• <rankenberr!, Hanc!, )**, “lassical "heism, Panentheism, and

Pantheism8 7n the (elation between God onstruction and Gender and

onstruction”, ?#%on, /A8 /*B31.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 21/24

•  BBB, /0)), “<eminist Philosoph! of (eligion”, The *tan!ord :nc#clopedia

o! hilosoph#, Edward H. Nalta &ed.2, ?(@ O

http8DDplato.stanford.eduDarchivesDwin/0))DentriesDfeminist-religionD Q.

•<ranklin, ;. "., )*A3, “Panentheism”, :van%elical Dictionar# o! Theolo%#,

4. %. Elwell &ed.2, Grand (apids, =8 6aker 6ook 'ouse, pp. A)ABA/0.

• Gillett, arl, /00, “Ph!sicalism and Panentheism8 Good Hews and 6ad

 Hews”, Faith and hilosoph#, /08 B/.

• GCcke, 6enedikt Paul, /0), “"he mportance of 9arl hristian <riedrich

9rause$s Panentheism”, ?#%on, forthcoming.

•

Gregersen, Hiels 'enrik, “"hree Farieties of Panentheism”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s resence

in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids, =8

4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. )*B+.

• Griffin, :avid (a!, /003, “Panentheism8 % Postmodern (evelation”, in -n

.hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2,

Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. 1B3.

• Grounds, Fernon, )*0, “"he <uture of "heolog! and the "heolog! of the

<uture”, ournal o! the :van%elical Theolo%ical *ociet#, )/8 )3B)).

• 'artshorne, harles and (eese, 4illiam @. &eds.2, )*+, hilosophers *pea@ 

o! "od , hicago8 ?niversit! of hicago Press.

• ant#en Grace, )**A, ecomin% Divine ToAards a !eminist philosoph# o!

reli%ion, =anchester8 =anchester ?niversit! Press.

• 9eller, atherine, /00, Face o! the Deep Theolo%# o! ecomin% , Hew

Rork8 (outledge.

• @outh, %ndrew, /003,“"he osmic Fision of ;aint =a5imos the

onfessor”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic

 6e!lections on "od9s resence in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke

&eds.2, Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. )A3B)*1.

• =c:aniel, a!, )*A*, ! "od and elicans Theolo%# o! 6everence !or

 /i!e, @ouisville, 9R8 ohn 9no5D4estminster.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 22/24

• =c<ague, ;allie, /00), /i!e bundant 6ethin@in% Theolo%# and :conom#

 !or a lanet in eril , =inneapolis8 <ortress Press.

• =olnar, Paul :., )**0, “"he <unction of the "rinit! in =oltmann$s

Ecological :octrine of reation”, Theolo%ical *tudies, +)8 1B1*.

• =oltmann, Irgen, )*3, The ruci!ied "od , Evanston, @8 'arper and

(ow.

•  BBB, )*A), The Trinit# and the $in%dom, Hew Rork8 'arper and (ow.

•  BBB, )**1, The omin% o! "od hristian :schatolo%#, =inneapolis8

<ortress Press.

•  Hesteruk, %le5ei F., /003, “"he ?niverse as '!postatic nherence in the

@ogos of God8 Panentheism in the Eastern 7rthodo5 Perspective”, in -n .hom .e

 /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s resence

in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids, =8

4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. )1*B)A.

• Peacocke, %rthur, )**, reation and the .orld o! *cience, 75ford8

larendon Press.

•  BBB, /00), aths !rom *cience toAards "od The :nd o! ll ur :=plorin% ,

75ford8 7neworld.

•  BBB, /003, “%rticulating God$s Presence in and to the 4orld ?nveiled b! the

;ciences”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% , P. la!ton and %.

Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. )B)+3.

•  BBB, /001, “Emergence, =ind, and :ivine %ction8 "he 'ierarch! of the

;ciences in (elation to the 'uman =ind-6rain-6od!”, in The 6e<:mer%ence o!

 :mer%ence The :mer%entist +#pothesis !rom *cience to 6eli%ion, P. la!ton andP. :avies &eds.2, 75ford, 75ford ?niversit! Press, pp. /+B/A.

• Polkinghorne, ohn, /0)0, “"he :emise of :emocritus”,in h#sical *cience

and Theolo%#, ohn Polkinghorne &ed.2, Grand (apids, =8 Eerdmans, pp. )B)3.

• (ichardson, 4. =ark, /0)0, “Evolutionar!-emergent worldview and

%nglican theological revision8 case studies from the )*/0s”, n%lican Theolo%ical

 6evieA, */8 /)B3+.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 23/24

• (eese, 4illiam @., /00A, “pantheism”, in :nc#clopBdia ritannica,

retrieved une /+, /00A, from Enc!clopSdia 6ritannica 7nline8

http8DDsearch.eb.comDebDarticle-A)++.

•(owe, 4illiam @., /00, “:oes panentheism reduce to pantheismJ a

response to raig”, -nternational ournal !or hilosoph# o! 6eli%ion, 1)8 1+B1.

• ;chaab, Gloria, /00, “=idwifer! as a =odel for Environmental Ethics8

E5panding %rthur Peacocke$s =odels of $=anBinBreation”, ?#%on, 38 3AB3*A.

•  BBB, /00A, “Evolutionar! "heor! and "heolog!8 % =utuall! lluminative

:ialogue”, ?#%on, 3/8 /A+B/*+.

•

;tansell, Ellen and Phillips, ;tephen '., /0)0, “'artshorne and ndianPanentheism”, *ophia, 3*8 *B)A.

• Fail, Erich =., /0)/, reation and haos Tal@ hartin% a .a# ForAard,

 rinceton Theolo%ical ono%raph *eries, Eugene, 7(8 Pickwick Publications.

• Fanhoo#er, 9evin ., )**A, “Effectual all or ausal EffectJ ;ummons,

;overeignt! and ;upervenient Grace”, T#ndale ulletin, 3*8 /)B/+).

• 4ard, 9eith, /003, “"he 4orld and the 6od! of God8 % Panentheistic

=etaphor”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and +ave ur ein% anentheistic

 6e!lections on "od9s resence in a *cienti!ic .orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke

&eds.2, Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6. Eerdmans, pp. 1/B/.

• 4are, 9allistos, /003, “God mmanent !et "ranscendent8 "he :ivine

Energies according to ;aint Gregor! Palamas”, in -n .hom .e /ive and ove and 

 +ave ur ein% anentheistic 6e!lections on "od9s resence in a *cienti!ic

.orld , P. la!ton and %. Peacocke &eds.2, Grand (apids, =8 4illiam 6.

Eerdmans, pp. )+B)1A.

• 4egterB=cHell!, 9irk, /0)), “"he Entangled God8 :ivine (elationalit!

and Kuantum "heor!”, Hew Rork8 (outledge.

• 4hittemore, (obert ., )*10, “'egel %s Panentheist”, *tudies in +e%el ,

&;eries8 "ulane ;tudies in Philosoph!, Folume *2, pp. )3B)13.

•  BBB, )*AA, “"he meeting of East and 4est in neglected Fedanta”, Dialo%ue

> lliance, /8 B3.

7/17/2019 Panentheism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panentheism 24/24

• 4ildman, 4esle! ., /0)), “=ark ohnston$s Haturalistic %ccount of God

and Hature, @ife and :eath”, merican ournal o! Theolo%# and hilosoph#, /8

)A0B)A.

cademic Tools

'ow to cite this entr!.

Preview the P:< version of this entr! at the <riends of the ;EP ;ociet!.

@ook up this entr! topic at the ndiana Philosoph! 7ntolog! Pro>ect &nPh72.

Enhanced bibliograph! for this entr! at PhilPapers, with links to its database.

!ther "nternet Reso#rces

• Paul :avies$s web pages at %ri#ona ;tate ?niversit!

• enter for Process ;tudies

• “Emergence” b! oseph 6racken with a response from Philip la!ton

Related $ntries

emergent properties T feminist &interventions28 philosoph! of religion T feminist

 philosoph! of religion T apanese Philosoph!8 9!oto

;chool T monotheism T pantheism T process theism T religion8 philosoph!of  T ;chopenhauer, %rthur  T ;pino#a, 6aruch Tsupervenience

Copyright © 2013 by

 John Culp < jculp@apu.edu>