Panentheism--The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present

Summary: An exceedingly helpful book for Christians attempting to understand modernity written by Dr. John W. Cooper of Calvin College and recommended by Paul Helm. It draws together the historical strings of modernity and Christian liberalism with alacrity.Traditional Christian and Jewish theology have argued that while God is immanent creation remains wholly separate from God. God categorically transcends creation even as he remains present everywhere. God's Being is separate from the universe. At the same time there has been a minority view among Christian theologians called panentheism. Panentheism is the view that while God is greater than the universe, God's Being is in every part of the universe. In pantheism God's being is the universe.The philosophical roots of panentheism can be found in Plato's most careful theological dialogue called the Timaeus as well as in other scattered references. In this openly speculative dialogue, Plato locates "the world in the World-Soul" (35). Thus a stream of interpretation concluded that "the Soul of eternal divine Reason can be identified with the World-Soul of Timaeus, then the World-Soul is an aspect of God, and Plato is a panenetheist" (Ibid.).Dr. Cooper does not believe this is a necessary reading of Plato (I agree), but this reading captured the imagination of Plotinus (204-270) who developed what came to be known as Neo-Platonism. Plotinus' position is panetheism:Plotinus worked out the unresolved issues in Plato's philosophy and developed a unified account of reality in which the divine Mind/Demiurge, the World-Soul, and the universe emanates hierarchically from the Good, that is, the divine One. The One is both infinite and utterly transcendent, yet it includes or contains everything that emanates from it (39).As scholastic Christian theology developed, it often borrowed theological concepts and vocabulary from Greek philosophical thought. A 5th century Christian writer now known as Pseudo-Dionysius--originally the author was thought to be Paul's first convert at Athens (Acts 17:34)--blended panentheism with orthodox Christianity. Pseudo-Dionysius' mystical theology heavily influenced the likes of Thomas of Aquinas and others, but also created a stream of panentheistic practice, mysticism, and theology as a minority position within Western theology.Cooper then argues that these mystics and theologians--John Scotus Erugena (810-877), Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260-1327), Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), Jakob Bohme (1575-1624)--lay the groundwork for Hegel, Heidegger, Tillich, and Moltmann. And he argues this conclusively through citation of these men's own writings. Essentially, academic Christian liberalism is panentheism. There are also more conservative forms found in Jonathan Edwards' philosophical works and Samuel Coleridge (1772-1834).Modern popular thought among academics and in less rigorous venues tilts heavily towards materialism and human freedom as a value. So the acceptable and confirming public and academic stance must take a high view of man and his sovereignty. Prior to the Enlightenment popular thought was enframed by Augustinian theism and tilted heavily towards God as separate from creation and a lower view of man. With the sweeping away of the Augustinian consensus on theology proper and anthropology, the theological and philosophical imagination is now enframed by human freedom and a limited God. The popular imagination demands human freedom and posits the problem of evil as the basic proof against traditional theism.Conceptually panentheism offers some unique rhetorical advantages to traditional theism for a materialistic age. (I am not suggesting that it offers a more accurate view of God or reality.) The theologian can affirm the popular consensus of evolutionary theory while maintaining a mostly transcendent God who is not responsible for evil. The philosopher is given a god of the gaps that allows him to explain how an unintelligent-purposeless-lifeless cosmos produced an intelligent-purposeful-living philosopher--the cosmos is within a philosophically necessary deity.Panentheism also opens the door for "deep ecumenicalism," because forms of Buddhism, Islamic thought, New Age mysticism, and Christianity, along with basic paganism can find common ground in affirming "the value and freedom of the world while emphasizing the world's dynamic integration within a real transcendent divinity" (236).Religiously the "main difference among world panentheisms is whether the Divine is thought of as ultimately personal or impersonal. In the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, personal theism predominates. . . In primal and Asian religions, the prepersonal Force predominates (236). Thus mystic physicists, secular philosophers, Buddhists, progressive Catholics, liberal Protestants, feminists, and so forth can all agree about some fundamental aspects of reality and deity.Dr. Cooper completes the books with a brief academic defense of classical theism and carefully demarks the possible orthodox modifications of classical theism.Benefits/Detriments: I can add nothing to Paul Helm's recommendation from the dust jacket: "This is a groundbreaking attempt to demonstrate the philosophical background of much modern Christian theology, to identify its `natural religion.' Written with the utmost clarity and quiet passion, it greatly helps to sharpen the differences between classical theism and other views. Though dissenting from panentheism and from the theologies it fosters, John Cooper nevertheless writes with courtesy and good sense, letting the record speak for itself. The book is a model of lucidity and fair-mindedness."

Book labeled "very good"' arrived within a week and appears brand new.The text itself records a sensible, researched history of panentheism.

I have long considered myself a panentheist, though I don't personally subscribe to any particular "school" of panentheistic thought (such as Neoplatonism or process theology). In my view, panentheism provides the only conception of God that actually makes sense in light of what modern science tells us about the nature of the cosmos, and what rational reflection tells us about the essential qualities that a "God" would have to possess in order to merit the title (or at least the capitalization). All other conceptions of God ring hollow to me for reasons that are far too complex to go into here. Although I am certainly open minded enough entertain other viewpoints, and am always willing to revise my beliefs in light of new evidence, my panentheistic conception of God is the end result of decades of serious reflection on the "God question" -- in which I've carefully weighed the merits of everything from traditional theism to Deism to atheism, and everything in between -- so it would take quite a lot to persuade me to abandon panentheism for some other theological position. I'm more than happy to listen to anyone who is able to present a well-reasoned, respectful argument on the subject; but I don't want to waste my time listening to the sort of simpleminded "Bible thumping" that I've come to expect from evangelical Christians, or the equally simpleminded "Bible bashing" that I've come to expect from atheists. So I have to admit that I was a bit hesitant to read a book about the history of panentheistic thought written by a Calvinist theologian who openly rejects panentheism in favor of a traditional view of the nature of God, based on a literal reading of Scripture and the work of early Christian theologians. While I welcomed the opportunity to revisit a point of view that I had long since rejected, I was worried that this book might present a grossly distorted picture of panentheism, its history, and its advocates in an attempt to unfairly discredit this controversial theological position. I'm glad to say that my fears were totally unfounded. While the author was completely upfront about his own theological position and his rejection of panentheism, he made every effort to be historically accurate and to treat panentheism and its supporters respectfully. If you want to learn about the history of panentheism, don't hesitate to get this book simply because the author is a critic rather than a proponent of panentheism. His criticism of panentheism is confined largely to the first and final chapters of the book. The chapters in between, which cover the history of panentheistic thought from the ancient Greeks to the present day, betray scarcely a hint of the author's personal biases against panentheism. And even in the last chapter, where the author makes his case against panentheism, he does so with respect and humility. While I was not personally swayed by the author's argument, I admired its civility.This book was written specifically for theology students in order to provide them with a firm grounding in the basic tenets of panentheistic thought as it has developed over time (mainly so they would be well prepared to argue effectively against panentheism, and to defend traditional Christian theology against "process theology" and other panentheistic visions of God). Because it was written for theology students, it might not be well suited for lay readers, unless they have a pretty solid background in philosophy and/or theology. Though it is well written, it can get pretty dense in places; and, if you're not accustomed to the sort of arcane language used in theology and metaphysics, you might find it hard to follow. Given the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, and the need to cite the work of philosophers and theologians whose writings can be rather obscure, I seriously doubt that the author could have made the material all that much clearer even if he were writing for a general audience. But be warned that this is not light reading.The only substantive complaint I have about this book -- apart from its difficulty -- is that the author's attempts to distinguish panentheism from pantheism often felt rather strained. Now, I'll have to admit that this is a subject that not only invites, but practically demands, hair splitting; and I guess I just prefer to split the hair in a slightly different place than the author does. (Perhaps, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with these terms, I should point out that "pan-theism" is the belief that "all is God" -- i.e. that God and the cosmos [i.e. the natural world, the material universe, Creation] are actually one and the same: the distinction between the two is semantic rather than ontological -- whereas "pan-en-theism" is the belief that "all is IN God" -- i.e. that the cosmos somehow exists within God, but that God is greater than the cosmos: the two can be thought of as ontologically distinct, but not ontologically separate. This is to be contrasted with traditional theism, which holds that the cosmos exists outside of God: the two are both ontologically distinct and ontologically separate. There's still a lot of debate about the precise nature of the God-cosmos relationship in both pantheism and panentheism, and just how these two views of God differ; so the hair tends to get split in a variety of different ways.) The author labels some thinkers as pantheists who I would regard as panentheists. But, given the vagueness of what many of these thinkers wrote about the nature of God, and given the subtleties of the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, this sort of thing is to be expected. I just found the author's rationale for characterizing one thinker as a panentheist and another as a pantheist to be rather unpersuasive. The criteria he uses for distinguishing panentheism from pantheism seemed somewhat contrived to me. (I won't go into the specifics of how my views on the pantheism/panentheism distinction differ from those of the author, since doing so would involve a lengthy and tedious discussion of semantics.) I'm just not convinced that the author's implicit definition of panentheism is inclusive enough. I'm not even sure that I would meet his criteria for inclusion in the panentheistic camp -- I suspect that he would probably label me a pantheist, even though I firmly reject that label. But this is my only real complaint about the author's treatment of panentheism in his historical survey.An Amazon book review is not really the most appropriate forum for a lengthy discussion of theology; so, as tempting as it might be, I will refrain from offering my own critique of the various theological viewpoints discussed in this book, except to note that I found just about all of them to be irredeemably flawed in some crucial way -- and that includes the traditional theism defended by the author, as well as the various forms of pantheism and panentheism that he discusses. I'm a panentheist; but that doesn't mean that I agree with the specifics of how various panentheistic philosophers and theologians have worked out their conceptions of God. In fact, the only perspective on the nature of God discussed in this book that I can endorse at all is that of the ancient Greek and Roman Stoics, who the author regards as pantheists rather than panentheists. (I personally have to disagree with the author on this point; but I will concede that ancient Stoic writings about God could be interpreted either way.) I'm not suggesting that Stoicism offers the one-and-only correct perspective on the nature of God; but I personally find the Stoic conception of God to be more reasonable than any other theological position discussed in this book. I'm tempted to say much more about why I found the other theological perspectives so unsatisfactory (in fact, I initially wrote a very lengthy paragraph trying to outline my criticisms in brief, but deleted it when I realized that what I had written was anything but brief); but I think I ought to resist that particular temptation, and wrap up my review.I'm glad I read this book. It was educational and thought provoking. And, perhaps more importantly, its treatment of the history of panentheism was fair. But I just can't bring myself to give this book a five-star rating. A five-star rating implies a wholehearted recommendation. It's usually reserved for books you genuinely love. Well, I liked this book; but, to be honest, I didn't love it. It might be ideal for advanced theology students; but it's just too abstruse for the casual reader. If you don't already have a pretty strong background in philosophy and/or theology, I can't recommend it at all -- you'll have a hard time making sense of some of the ideas being discussed. I don't mind admitting that my eyes glazed over more than once while reading this book. Is it informative? Yes it is. Is it a pleasure to read? No it is not. Sorry.

Critique rating: 5 stars ***This book provides a comprehensive, historical survey of panentheism ("all-in-God-ism"). Panentheism is compared with pantheism. In addition, emanationism, dialectical theology, process theology, dipolar theism and trinitarianism are covered. Special attention is given to Teilhard DeChardin's Christocentric panentheism, Tillich's existentialist panentheism, Moltmann's perichoretic panentheism and Pannenberg's panentheistic force field theology. In the final chapter, Cooper explains why he believes classical theism is superior to panentheism.I recommend this book to anyone who is wishing to gain an introduction to panentheism and how it actually differs from classical theism. I would definitely choose this one over Charles Hartshorne's "Philosophers Speak of God."

Sat in class with Dr. Cooper for his panentheism course. Excellent scholarship. Best book on the comprehensive history of panentheism.

AH! TRUEAAA++++