I can remember a number of mailing list discussions about theism, pantheism and panentheism the net result of which seemed to be that panentheism was treated as a mediating term between pantheism and theism but understood so broadly that it was hard to tell whether it was really something distinct or simply a way to avoid conflict by agreeing to modify views and accept a third term to cover modified positions. So I think I will make this article my own official guide to and definition of panentheism along with its helpful guidance on the philosophical issues.
Science & Theology News
30 April 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
3 comments:
Thanks for the link.
Griffin is, of course, not neutral in the discussion (which he admits) and is fairly well into the process theology camp. His statement "With panentheism defined so broadly, it loses its promise to overcome the problem of evil." is a little odd as I'd always understood process thought (at least as theology derived from Whitehead, rather than Teilhard) to not be able to answer the question the problem of evil - while it can explain why it exists, and God's intention for the universe, there's always the possibility that evil overcomes all as the universe rejects the "lures" of God. Not generally helpful as a producer of hope.
Still the panentheists in the broad are helpful in reminding us that God is still involved in the world - sometimes you get the feeling that some forms of "creationism" are little more than Deist in their implications. If I remember rightly Moltmann's book on creation might be off down the panentheistic path depending on your perspective.
Norman Geisler's book Creating God in the Image of Man? would be a (good?) example of how conservative North American Christianity responds to panentheism - though Geisler seems to use the term more broadly (to include Open Theism) than Griffin and co. would.
I'd noticed the comment about evil and like you had thought that it probably didn't really add up. I'm with you too tht it seems like a lot of creationists are in effect deists. Thanks for theGeisler reference -I will folow that up when I have opportunity as I think that this kindof question is pretty important in how we frame a coherant and intelligent Christian thought-project for the third millennium.
I think of lot of "panentheists" are actually trying to emphaise some important points that classical theists are trying to frame. The problem is that 'theism' keeps looking like deism. I note that this is the difficulty I think that Matthew Fox gets into in Original Blessing; he rightly has it in for deist thought but doesn't really wrestle with theost thought in the vein of Vernon White and others ...
Post a Comment