John W. Cooper (Ph.D. University of Toronto) is an ordained Christian Reformed minister who teaches philosophical theology at the Calvin Theological Seminary and has written two other theology books.

I thought this book could be an excellent source to compare various formulations of panentheism when I saw on Amazon.com its detailed 2-pp Table of Contents, with many philosophers/theologians I knew about, several of whom I had already read (names given later). Cooper did not disappoint me! In fact, I’ve only studied some more recent panentheists, so he introduced me to many panentheists of past ages whom I had not known about. [For clarity, “pantheism” means “God is everything and everything is God” – thus there is nothing transcendent about God. “Panentheism says “God is in everything and everything is in God, but God is more” – and the more is the transcendent aspect of God. Although overly simplified, these definitions suffice to introduce the crucial word “in” (“en” in Greek).]

In Ch 1 Cooper says: “In brief, classical theism asserts that God is transcendent, self-sufficient, eternal, and immutable in relation to the world; thus he does not change through time and is not affected by his relation to his creation. A large majority of recent theologians – non-Christians, modernist Christians, and even traditional Christians – agree that the classical doctrine of God is neither biblical nor philosophically coherent.” Thus, “In sum, contemporary theologians of many religious and philosophical perspectives are critical of the God of the philosophers, that is, the God of classical theism, for biblical, theological, and philosophical reasons.” … “If classical theism represents “the God of the philosophers”, then panentheism counters with “the other God of the philosophers.”

There is a “great panentheist tradition that is crucial for understanding historical and contemporary theology.” But panentheistic diversity abounds! He identifies “at the outset five distinctions on basic issues that occur throughout this book: explicit and implicit panentheism, personal and nonpersonal panentheism, part-whole and relational panentheism, voluntary and/or natural panentheism, and classical (divine determinist) or modern (cooperative) panentheism.” Philosophers often define in their words that which they are about to offer to the reader. Ch 1 pp 22-26 gives “A Preliminary Overview” in which Cooper briefly tells what and whom each chapter discusses. So I recommend one read Ch 1 then decide if the perspectives discussed are of interest to you. (Most of them were to me.)

I name those thinkers I found most interesting – others I simply count. Ch 2 (Plato through Christian Neoplatonism) covers Plato and 5 others. Ch 3 (Renaissance to Romanticism) covers 6 more. Ch 4 covers Schelling and Hegel. Ch 5 (19th-Century Proliferation), in just 29 pp, covers 19 more, including William James. Ch 6 is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Christocentric Panentheism). Ch 7 is Process Theology: Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin). Ch 8 is Paul Tillich’s Existential Panentheism). Ch 9 (Diversity in 20th-Century Philosophy, Theology, and Religion) covers 13, including John A.T. Robinson and Hans Kung. Ch 10 is Moltmann’s Perichoretic Panentheism. Ch 11 is Pannenberg’s Panentheistic Force Field. Ch 12 (Liberation & Ecological Theologies) covers 7, including Sallie McFague and Matthew Fox. Ch 13 (Panentheism in Theological Cosmology) covers Ian G. Barbour, Paul Davies, Arthur Peacocke, Philip Clayton, and John Polkinghorne – who all discuss the compatibility of science and religion in much more detail than did William James, Teilhard de Chardin, and the process theologians named above.

Thus in sum, I had already read and reviewed 29 books for 16 of the philosophers and/or theologians and/or scientists whose thinking John W. Cooper summarizes in this book. I think he did a very good job in his summaries of those I’ve read, although he had to omit some of their important ideas, concepts, and/or worldviews. As Cooper states, they are all panentheists of one type or another, but I’m doubtful that each one would have agreed with the panentheist label that Cooper attached to them.

In Ch 14 (Why I Am Not a Panentheist), Cooper says, “Here are my commitments. I affirm a traditional Christian view of Scripture as divinely inspired, infallibly true, and authoritative in all that it teaches; a Reformed interpretation of Scripture; the ecumenical Christian creeds, such as the Nicene Creed; and a theological perspective based on the Reformed confessions and historic Reformed theology. Thus I hold a robust notion of God’s supernatural transcendence and freedom in relation to the world, as well as a strong view of God’s acts in creation, providence, special revelation, miracles, and his saving acts in history, especially through the person and work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am predisposed toward classical theism because it has been the philosophical theology of the Augustinian-Calvinian tradition in which I stand.” (This may be that which is expected for an ordained Christian Reformed minister who teaches philosophical theology at the Calvin Theological Seminary.) At face value, his commitments means (using his own words) that he is not among the “large majority of recent theologians – non-Christians, modernist Christians, and even traditional Christians – {who} agree that the classical doctrine of God is neither biblical nor philosophically coherent.”

In the rest of Ch 14, he argues for his commitments, but only by qualifying many of them. For example, he soon refers to revised classical theism and for a relational God who is not immutable. So, in brief, his explanations for his stance in many regards overlaps significantly with the philosophical/theological coherence that is the goal of the “great panentheistic tradition” that he has described throughout his historical journey through the development of panentheism. So his Ch 14 leaves me somewhat puzzled as to just where John W. Cooper really stands. Nevertheless, I think he did an overall excellent job of historical coverage. One result is to interest me in reading some of the works of Moltmann and perhaps also Pannenberg. I recommend his book highly, especially for those who know little of the great tradition of panentheism.