31 | Panentheism, Empathy and Christianity

Welcome to the Cow Behind the Barn: A podcast exploring humanity, the world, and the divine, as experienced and interpreted by an artist. I’m Kevin Caldwell, a co-finder of the Table Collective.

In early Episodes I came to conclude that consciousness is in some way a fundamental ingredient in the nature of the cosmos. Without rehearsing every detail, that eventually led me to ask what the nature of consciousness might be, which brought me to empathy, which brought me to ask about empathy and reality which led me to the divine, which brought me to the menagerie of theisms: atheism (or non-theism), pantheism, monotheism, polytheism. 

And now I am going to look at the last type of theism I will cover: panentheism, and my suggestion that Christianity is an example of that view.  

In a few minutes, I will describe panentheism, then explain my reasons for seeing Christianity as an example of it, then turn to the question whether empathy factors into all of that and if so, how.

But first, I will share a song that I think expresses panentheism. Yes, before defining and explaining it, I will just invite us to receive something that imaginatively expresses it. My “Song of Light.”

 

Song of Light

 

Light is falling into my window, light as feather in my hands

Light of moon is lace on cinders, tongues of light are woven strands

Light is falling

Light is falling

 

Light is flowing out through my window, as light as feathered wing flies from hand

Light on the moon, night sky is cinder; light from tongues like flowing strands

Light is flowing

Light is flowing

 

Light is glowing, light is my window, light is feathered bird nesting in my hand

Light is moon, and night, and cinder; light is words on tongues, glowing strands

Light is glowing

Light is glowing

 

I will turn now to describing panentheism, and then comment a bit on how the song connects with that.

 

What is Panentheism?

The term is constructed by combining several Greek terms: “pan” (all), “en” (en, not in), and “theos” (God). Thus, pan-en-theism, or “all-in-god-ism.” Panentheism works the other way too: “theos-en-pan-ism,” or, “god-in-all-ism.”  

Either way, this is the view that the cosmos is in God and God is in the cosmos. Panentheism can also be described as combining pantheist and monotheist worldviews. 

In monotheism God and the cosmos are ontologically distinct, both really exist. In pantheism God and the cosmos are ontologically identical, only the divine really exists. In panentheism God and the cosmos are ontologically entangled. That word should sound familiar if you have listened to prior Episodes in which I explored quantum physics. We could say interconnected, or that panentheism describes “interbeing” or union.

The emergence of panentheism as a theological description of the world and the divine has developed especially within Christian traditions, in part as a conversation between theology and quantum physics, and with some parallel developments within philosophy. I want to say a bit about that conversation.

 

Panentheism, Physics, and Entanglement

In quantum theory, sub-atomic particles, even though separated from each other by significant distances, are entangled. They affect each other and are affected by human observation. Particles behave in ways that cannot be predicted on the basis of their specific properties. A quantum understanding of the cosmos has suggested a model to some theologians for understanding the way that the divine might be “present,” entangled in and with things at even the subatomic particle level.

 

Panentheism, Philosophy, and Entanglement

Within philosophy the theory known as panpsychism resulted from engaging with quantum physics. Panpsychism suggests that all things and beings, including particles, possess both physical and mental properties. In other words, some sort of consciousness. Some forms of panpsychism are particularly compatible with panentheism. 

Panentheism has emerged in large part as a result of Christian theologians engaging those developments within physics and philosophy in a conversation with the foundational texts of their heritage (especially in the New Testament).

Before proceeding, two quick observations.

Saying that Christian theology has been a primary soil for the development of panentheism does not mean there are not similar developments in other religions. I am focused on Christian views because that is where most of the discussion has taken place, and also because it seems to include the most natural soil in which panentheist ideas might take root and thrive.  

And secondly, I am not suggesting that all Christian thinkers would agree with me. Classical Christianity is a monotheist religion. My question then, is whether the original texts of the Christian tradition include at least the seeds of panentheistic conceptions of the world. 

And what about the song?

It begins with, “Light is falling into my window.” Then says, “Light is flowing out through my window.” And finally, Light is my window.” 

Light as something existing separately but yet not separately from me. If light were “theos,” God, then this would be very much akin to panentheism. 

Now I turn to the New Testament, and the question: does the New Testament provide any ground for “all-in-God-ism” or “God-in-all-ism”? 

 

The New Testament and Panentheism

First, it is important to acknowledge that almost all of the authors were Jewish and as such, steeped in Jewish monotheism. 

However, these authors worked during a period in which Judaism was deeply influenced by its engagement with Greek thought, some streams of which are compatible with panentheism. I can’t swerve here into a more detailed discussion of those strains of thought in the Greek world. The point is that as a result, the New Testament also includes concepts compatible with panentheism.

I will draw from two primary sources: Paul and John.

Before digging in, much of the conversation that follows will naturally involve how these authors view Jesus, and his nature as “the son of God”, and as divine (though the New Testament does not define this in ways that later developments would do, nor does the New Testament present a homogeneous viewpoint on this subject). I can’t enter into the debates in New Testament scholarship about these questions, and so for our purposes, I think it is sufficient to say that the examples I am bringing, related to Jesus, illustrate the New Testament understanding of the divine relationship with the cosmos.

 

Paul and Panentheism

In the first chapter of a letter attributed to Paul and traditionally thought to be addressed to early believers in Ephesus (though it may have been a letter intended for wider circulation), the author describes the person of the divine son, Jesus, as the one “who fills everything in every way.” He is a distinct being, and yet he fills everything. That is consistent with panentheism.

In a letter sent to believers in the city of Colossae, we are told, speaking again of the divine son, “in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…in him all things hold together…God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…” The divine fullness is in this “son”, and everything in the cosmos is also in him. That is consistent with panentheism.

 

John and Panentheism

I turn next to the Gospel of John, which opens by saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There is no space here to explain the different ways scholars have interpreted the term “word” (Greek, logos). It is enough for our purposes here to say that the consensus is that this “word” is divine. The text continues, “through that word all things were made; without the word nothing was made that has been made…” and then, “in the word was life, and that life was the light of all humanity.” 

Everything in the cosmos came to be through the divine word, and the very essence of all of life is in that word.

Condensing the material from Paul and John, the picture that we are being presented with is a world that is very consistent with panentheism, as well as my term, “theosenpanism.” All things in God, God in all things.

I have described what panentheism is, and I have given examples to indicate that the New Testament includes passages consistent with it. Now, what about empathy?

 

The New Testament and Empathy

I will return to looking at empathy through both the existential and ontological lenses.

That the New Testament includes the existential dimension of empathy can be shown pretty quickly. 

The teaching of Jesus is in line with what we saw in the discussion of Judaism, and in particular with the summary of the Torah expressed by Rabbi Hillel. One of the most cited statements of Jesus’ teaching is “love your neighbor as yourself” along with the statement which flows from that principle, the so-called golden rule, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

The two statements are like two sides of a coin. Combined they require and assume some form of empathy, the ability to put ourselves in the place of another. Both depend upon the ability to attribute to others the things we feel and experience.

That is empathy.

What of the dimension of empathy rooted in the very essence of reality which in this case would mean empathy as a fundamental quality of the divine nature, ontological empathy?

There are several lines of approach to this. 

The first is similar to what we outlined in the discussion of Judaism. Given that humanity is created in God’s image, which is affirmed in the New Testament, and that we are admonished to engage empathy in the process of loving our neighbor as ourselves, by extension, empathy can be assumed to be part of the divine character.

The New Testament adds force to that way of reasoning by referring to believers as God’s sons and daughters. This is another way of tapping into the idea of being made in God’s image. The phrase refers to a spiritual reality, so in John we are told that humans can be begotten by God. In a letter attributed to John the author says that anyone who loves has been begotten by God, since love is God’s nature. 

In sum, we are admonished to cultivate certain qualities because these are qualities of the divine nature.

So far, this is very much in keeping with what we saw in our discussion of Judaism. But what about empathy more specifically?

There are two more points I want to draw out which are unique to the New Testament. Both are found, again, in John chapter 1.

 

John: Towardsness and Love 

As we have already noted John opens with the statement that the word was God and was also “towards God.” The term used in the text is normally translated “with.” As if the  word were somehow alongside or next to God, accompanying God.

But if that were John’s intent, he had several words to choose from to convey it more clearly. Instead he chose a word for “with” which includes the idea of being “towards.” 

When I use that connotation of the term, and taking into account the connectors in the Greek text between the clauses, my translation of verses 1 and 2 becomes:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was towards God and God was the word which was in the beginning towards God.”

Rendered in this way, the passage is like a loop, the  net effect of which is to emphasize that “towardsness” is at the very heart of the divine being, that the divine nature can be described as “God towards God.”

By the way, you may notice or be aware that my translation differs from the versions you may have compared or be aware of. I would suggest this is likely due to the understandable effect of rendering the text in such a way as to be keeping with layer theological developments relative to the nature of God, the Trinity, and the place of Jesus in all of that. I will be taking that sort of discussion up when I develop and release some different content in the future. That won’t be Cow Behind the Barn, and it will dig more deeply in texts like John, and also the Gita, Tao Te Ching, Buddha’s dhamma, the Quran, and likely more. Stay tuned!

Back to John…

In reference earlier to a letter that bears John’s name I mentioned John’s a summary of the divine nature: “God is love.” I am convinced that the community in which these Johannine texts emerged are saying that  God as “towardsness” is another way of saying God is love. Love is towards and towardsness is love, and both are grounded in the divine being.

But is empathy in the picture?

 

John, Empathy, and the Divine

Going back to the first chapter of John, verse 14 tells us that this same word we have been speaking of, the word that is divine and reveals the divine “towardsness,” also “became human and lived among us.” This is one of the primary texts leading to the development within Christian thinking of what is known as the incarnation, the ‘in-bodying” of the divine in a historical human being, Jesus of Nazareth.

My focus here is not on that doctrine, but on what I believe it reveals about John’s understanding of empathy relative to the divine nature. For it suggests that the divine ability to know and feel what it is to be human is not merely compassion, a feeling of care and concern for another. Nor is it merely sympathy, a care and concern for another as if I am that other. 

The text is revealing divine empathy, as an ontological reality, in which a person, in this case a big P Person, knows and feels and experiences what another knows and feels and experiences not just “as if” but “as” the other. Taking everything into one’s self, as one’s self. I believe this reality is what is behind the famous “I Am” statements Jesus makes in John. I am very tempted to say a lot more, but I will hold that for my deeper dive into John in another venue.

I can imagine a very valid question here, especially from Christian listeners: yes, but Kevin wasn’t this an event only pertaining to one person only?

What I am saying does not contradict that the divine “towardsness” may have taken place in a unique way in Jesus. However, that does not mean it is not also true in a much wider sense.

For that I turn to Christian theology for a moment.

Two of the most influential figures in the historical development of this doctrine were Irenaeus (likely born around 120 in the Common Era), and Athanasius (born right around the year 300).  

And one of the most important statements in both of their approaches to this question is this, "God became what we are so that we may become what God is." Another theme in Irenaeus is the idea that the incarnation reveals the true nature of humanity, not just Jesus. There are a number of things packed into that statement that Christians are still probing!

However, for the purposes of this Episode, the point I want to draw attention to is this:

The New Testament texts and later developments seem to lead to the view that God became what we, plural, are, so that we might become what God is. God became human, including becoming a human. God experienced human life, including the human life of an individual.

This reveals an example of ontological empathy explicitly rooted in the divine nature and, dare I say it, divine experience.

We have already noted the existential element in, for example, Jesus’ teaching about love of neighbor and the golden rule.

John’s way of bringing the existential implications into focus is a bit more complex, and is grounded in this ontological reality.

For God’s ontological empathy is also existential, not only for us to exhibit, but within the divine experience as well. And as if a looping circle, back again: intended to be our experience too.

One way I have tried to capture this empathetic dimension that is both ontological and existential is in a poem called “She Saw the Colors of the Clay” inspired by a conversation I had with a Somali woman in Malaysia following a poetry reading. She spoke of how her faith told her that when God made humans, God did so using clay that included all colors. And that she saw people that way. I realize now it was her way of experiencing empathy. Here’s the poem.

She Saw the Colors of the Clay

Through the framed window of her hijab

She saw the colors slabbed from clay

Cooling on faces 

Traced by the fiery finger of Allah

Her sight as expansive as a cosmos

Of color on the palette of the world

 

Wanting to see what she saw

I pressed my imagination to the window

8 inches wide, 4 high,

Straining to see into the inside,

Hoping for a glimpse from the inside,

Back out.

 

But I missed it.

 

The way wonder led her soul by the hand

Out into the wide world

And the colors of the clay she felt

And saw,

In the flaming living faces all around her.

Circling Back

It is time to begin to summarize this Episode. And in some ways, I need to summarize things going all the way back to the beginning of the podcast. I will try, briefly.

By the second Episode I articulated the question, “where and when did I begin?” That became the framework for everything I have covered:

Where, and the cosmos. When, and time. I, and consciousness.

Now, working backwards:

I began this Episode asking what panentheism is, whether Christianity might be an example of it, and whether empathy featured in the Christian understanding of reality, the nature of God. Without going back over everything, my conclusions are that yes, panentheism and Christianity are at the very least compatible, and that empathy is deeply and essentially an aspect of the divine nature: towardsness, love, and the word becoming human are all ways of speaking of this reality.

Panentheism was my final stop in the survey of theisms, which arose in seeking to ask whether empathy was an element of ultimate reality, and if so how. With the exception of polytheism, I made the case that monotheism, pantheism, panentheism, and even (at least in its Buddhist expression), atheism or non-theism, either explicitly include empathy in their vision of reality or include the germs of concepts that lead in that direction.

That grew out of my questions about the nature of consciousness in several Episodes, drawing from quantum physics and philosophy and religion, in which I began to see empathy as potentially the essential element of what consciousness is. 

Asking if empathy is an element of consciousness arose because I had asked whether there might be a dimension of consciousness beyond that in which a subject (a person or being) might experience events, and also be aware of experiencing them, and then also be aware within themselves that they are being aware. I asked if there is a dimension of consciousness in which a being experiences all of that which I just listed, and does so in such a way that the subject and object division disappears, and a subject experiences what another subject experiences and does so as that subject.

In other words a type of consciousness in which singular “I” and plural “we” no longer describe reality adequately.

Such an experience as a “subject” of what other “subjects” feel and experience is what I have defined as empathy. 

Now here I am, in this 31st Episode, having arrived at the conclusion that empathy and consciousness are deeply entwined, that consciousness is a fundamental element in the nature of the entire cosmos, and that empathy is at the core of it all, stitching everything together. 

The cosmos, and all of us, are entangled, pulsing as it were, in and with and from Empathy, with a big E. That is the soil from which to mine the answers to that question, “where and when did I begin?” 

 

Next Questions:

I am aware that answering my “where and when did I begin” question by grounding everything in empathy raises new, huge questions:

If empathy is so woven into the nature of reality, why is the world, and indeed nature itself, so cold and callous and cruel?

And if we humans are callous and cruel, what does that imply for AI? Won’t it be “coded”, as it were, by our collective consciousness to include the same cruelty?

I am also aware that there is a growing swell of opinion that sees empathy as itself a huge part of what is wrong with society.. Some refer to this as “the sin of empathy.” I feel I need to at least acknowledge this somehow.

I have not yet decided how or in which order to address these sorts of things, but I do plan to take them up, one way or another, starting…..

Next time.