John W. Cooper, Panentheism—the Other God of the Philosophers: from Plato to the Present

Baker Academic, 2006, 358 pgs.

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 panentheism:

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.”