“This new worldview is emerging from a number of streams of thought: the new physics; liberation theology; feminist theology; the reflections of psychologist Carl Jung and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin; process philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshrone, John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin; …the Buddhists Thich Nhat Hanh and Joanna Macy; and many Native American religions. The integral view of reality sees everything as having an outer and an inner aspect.
“Heaven and earth are seen here as the inner and outer aspects of a single reality. This integral worldview affirms spirit at the core of every created thing. But this inner spiritual reality is inextricably related to an outer form or physical manifestation. This new worldview takes seriously all the aspects of the ancient worldview, but combines them in a different way. Both worldviews use spatial imagery. The idea of heaven as ‘up’ is a natural, almost unavoidable way of indicating transcendence. But if the world turns, there is no longer an ‘up’ anywhere in the universe, just as north is no more ‘up’ than south is ‘down…’
“In this worldview, soul permeates the universe. God is not just within me, but within everything. The universe is suffused with the divine. This is not pantheism, where everything is God [sic], but panentheism (pan, everything; en, in; theos, God [sic]), where everything is in God [sic] and God [sic] in everything. Spirit is at the heart of everything, and all creatures are potential revealers of God [sic].”
(From Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, pages 19-20.)
Chutney, call me stupid (no, really, I insist!) but given this descirption of panentheism — why God? Why soul? How useful are these words when these words are everything?
But god isn’t everything, not under panentheism. (Under pantheism, though, god is everything. So it’s not a stupid question.) So panentheism is a middle position between theism, atheism/materialism, and pantheism.
But so what, right? Yeah, still working on that… I’ll have to work up some posts to that effect. Mostly because I find the concept life-giving, whereas I find the other options either dead in the water or violent. But more later. I’m glad you asked. I’ve been putting off spelling it out for a while now…
I was pointed to this post, albeit a month after you ended your discussion, in response to a conversation on by blog regarding a spiritual path focused on the most efficient transcendence of human life or one espousing the enjoyment of the road to spiritual maturation, much as we might like children in schools to focus on 2nd grade when they are 7 and not worry about high school graduation.
Today I began to see the subject differently as I noted what most adds to not only my enjoyment of life, but to my spiritual progress as measured by the amplification of love towards all living things I feel in my heart. And that is casual contact with strangers.
I am trying to make a short comment that tackles an immense issue, so forgive how much I am skipping over and assuming, but I will conclude with this thought:
I believe in a God of love. If spiritual maturity means full awareness of one’s union with God, that means a growth in the ability to love unconditionally. To sincerely greet the stranger with “glad to see you” singing in your heart is for me an indication of spiritual progress. It is the most simple example I can think of in demonstrating the theorem that we love God absolutely – that we love God as we find God in everyone and everything. If I can’t reach enlightenment on the path of growing in my ability to love, I guess I’m stuck here with all you other losers.