What does God in creation mean biblically?

I began this writing more than a year ago and have now retrieved it as I am preparing to help teach a class on ethics. Tomorrow I am helping by explaining panentheism, so I did a quick finish of this and will post it. My thought is to show the difference between the Christian Theist’s view of God’s transcendence & immanence and the Panentheist’s view of God . (Picture by Jenny McHenry)

Andrew Purves and Charles Partee in their article, “A Name is Not a Metaphor: A Response to ‘The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” in Theology Matters (Mar/Apr 2006), write an intriguing comment:

The Report [The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing] concludes our language can only point to a mystery the language cannot itself connect with; at worst, God really remains hidden, speechless, and unknown. If God is really mute concerning himself and his name, then we can invent God in our own image, or in the image of the relevant ideology to which we feel drawn. We have here the smiling face of Friedrich Schleiermacher behind which is the looming dark shadow of Immanuel Kant.

Immanuel Kant believed that we cannot know the ontological being of God, that is we cannot know how God is in himself, we can only experience God. In my view, he is dark and looming because, bowing to the twin ideologies of Deism and Enlightenment reason, Kant cuts humanity off from divine revelation.

Just as all philosophy is considered a footnote to Plato, so most of modern and post-modern philosophy and religion could be called a footnote to Kant’s many “antinomies.” That is Kant created, as John W. Cooper, puts it, “unresolved oppositions.” These include, “a chasm between God and the world.”1

A great deal of modern panentheism has developed from the theology or philosophy of those attempting to solve the problems connected to Kant’s antinomies. It is not Kant or his problems of opposition, I am particularly interested in, but panentheism and the difference between that and the Christian & biblical understanding of the immanence of God. To put it into a question, how is the God who is both transcendent and immanent different from the panentheistic God?

I raise this question for several reasons. I note on several blogs that the difference between God’s immanence and panentheism is often blurred by both writers and those who comment on their blogs. For that reason there is a lot of confusion surrounding many issues.

I also want to address this question because I find many progressive theologians and their followers are, seemingly, promoting a different God than the biblical God. And some people who follow in their footsteps become confused believing that the idea that God is in creation, and creation is in God is the same as panentheism. There is a difference.

The biblical understanding of God is that he is transcendent (other than creation) and his immanence (his relationship with creation) is based in his transcendence. That is, as a transcendent God, who is sufficient within his trinitarian being, he chose to create out of nothing. His being did not necessitate him creating so his creating activity is from grace, as is his redemption of earth’s fallen humanity.

Panentheists generally understand creation to be a part of God. Creation is a part of God but, unlike pantheism, God is more than creation. Panentheism posits a God who must create because creation or creating is a necessary part of who God is. In that case to say that God is in humanity and humanity is in God takes on a completely different meaning than Paul’s words to the Athenians, “for in Him we live and move and exist” (Acts 17:28a).

This is a reversal of Christian theism. In this scenario God’s transcendence comes from his immanence. That is, differences in God are shaped by his interaction with creation.

In the first understanding of God, Christian theism, God reaches out in grace to what is other than himself. In the second understanding of God, Panentheism, God can only give and take out of his insufficiency.

The biblical understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation and God’s redemptive grace are more clearly and cogently seen in Christian theism than in panentheism. A sufficient God can choose to freely give, can take on humanity and bring human sin to the cross. Beyond this, a God unshaped by humanity, yet, loving, good and eternal is not only sufficient within himself but is our sufficiency as we turn our lives over to Jesus Christ.


1 John W. Cooper, “Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2006), 91.

The Church within a Church: declaring for the Confessional Church 6

I have so far covered four faith statements and/or declarations written by Free Confessional Church Synods in Germany during the time of Hitler. There were other statements written as there always are during stressful times in the Church.

Likewise, in just the last few months various presbyteries and elders have offered statements concerning the extreme problems connected with the 218 General Assembly. For Instance San Diego Presbytery, or An Open Theological Declaration by some Elders of the Beaver Butler Presbytery or A Response by the Presbytery of San Joaquin.

Likewise various renewal groups, pastors and theologians have been writing about solutions. For instance see Michael Walker’s "What Way Ahead?"and What Way Ahead? Part Two: Initiating the Case for Realignment, or Pastor Mark Robert’s series.

Now I want to move toward the declarations passed by the Barmen Synod after they affirmed the Declaration of Barmen. With the additional declarations the members of the Synod shaped the life of the Confessing Churches in very practical ways.

But first they affirmed who they were as members of the Church. They, with the beginning of the Barmen Declaration and the 4th declaration, adopted May 29-31 1934, averred themselves the true Church under the Constitution of the German Evangelical Church. The constitution had been accepted by the whole Reich Church on July 14, 1933.

There was an attempt to change the constitution for the benefit of the German Christians. The Confessional Churches fought this move. They were, however, very clear about their reasons for declaring themselves the “legitimate German Evangelical Church.” And at this time it was the “Reich Church Administration” which they rejected. They would later, when the constitution had been effectively ruined, insist the Confessional Church members not obey any command of the administration.1

But their stand as the legitimate Church was based on their acceptance of the Holy Scriptures and the Confessions of the Reformation. The members of the Barmen Synod wrote:

“Only those who are called and who desire to hold fast to Holy Scripture and to the Church’s Confession of Faith as its inexpugnable foundation, and who desire to make both the authoritative standard of the German Evangelical Church again, may legitimately speak and act in the name of the German Evangelical Church.”

It was in this part of the Declaration, IV, that they insisted that the Church could not in its structure be hierarchical since that would be contrary to the “Reformation Confession of Faith.” Along side the denial of a hierarchical structure they insisted on the independence of the churches declaring that they should be free from harassment by either a Church administration or “external compulsion.”

I will, with my next posting, look at Declaration V. “Concerning the Practical Work of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church.


1 With this link as you read you will find that in the coming years the Confessional Church would be greatly weakened as an institution. However to think about it in a different way read my posting Paul Schneider: A Chestnut Tree and the Confessing Church

The Church within a Church: manipulation versus peace and unity 5

How do members of a Church, who are trying to bear a faithful witness to Jesus Christ, react when higher authorities use their positions to manipulate the situation in the Church? Does this scatter the sheep or draw them together? Is the Confession torn apart or lifted up by faithful witnesses?

In my last posting, The Church within a Church: The Church's message and form 4, I wrote about the “The Declaration Concerning the Right Understanding of the Reformation Confessions of Faith in the German Evangelical Church of the Present,” a statement written by Karl Barth and confirmed by most of the Free Synods. In this posting I am writing about “The Ulm Declaration” written in 1934.

This declaration was the Confessing Church’s answer to the hierarchical manipulation of the Churches in Germany. In this case it was the attempt by the German Christians to bring the “southern provincial churches of Baveria and Württemberg” into the Reich Church which was under the control of the German Christians. The attempt was manipulative, dishonest and included an attempt to remove a Pastor from his Church.

Dr. August Jäger, the “Legal Administrator” stepped into a conflict between the German Christians in “the Standing Committee of the Church Council” and the Bishop of the Württenburg Church, Theophil Wurm. He attempted to use the conflict as a way of influencing the Church to dispose of their Pastor. The attempt included a radio broadcast which lied about the Pastor and his Church.

This drew the churches of Baveria and Württemberg into the Free Synod movement. Arthur Cochrane writes of the Ulm Conference, “It was the most representative gathering of ‘Confessionals’ that had been held, bringing together delegates from Bavarian and Württenburg Churches, the Free Synods in the Rhineland, Westphalia, and Brandenburg, as well as many ‘confessing’ congregations throughout Germany.”1

The Ulm Declaration is the beginning of the Confessing Church’s insistence that they represented the true Church within the Evangelical Church of Germany. At the same time they understand that the German Christian’s call for peace and unity in the Church was totally political and had broken the peace of the Church.

So, one important action of this particular declaration was to tell the truth. The German Christians’ call for peace and unity was deceptive. The authors of the declaration wrote:

“It is not possible to preach peace and then immediately do violence to a Church that is bound to a Confession of Faith such as the Württenburg Church.”

The next action was to call for a true unity connected to the Church’s faithfulness to the Confessions. The authors wrote:

“Because of a constant endangering of the Church and its Confession and also in the interest of the truth, we exhibit, before Christendom and all who are willing to hear, a unity in which we intend, with the help of God’s strength, to remain faithful to the Confession, even though we have to expect that in doing so we will incur much trouble.”

After this the authors of the declaration confront some of the errors perpetrated against Bishop Wurm, and finally they give a call to faithfulness and offer a prayer, parts of which could be prayed by many in the PCUSA today.

“As a fellowship of determined fighters obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ, we pray Almighty God to open the eyes of all Christians to the danger that threatens our beloved Church. May he not let us waver in remaining faithful to his honor and in his service.”


1 This is just a small part of the incident for more information read, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler by Arthur C. Cochrane 137-139.

The Church within a Church: The Church's message and form 4

The Confessing Church in Germany, during the time of Hitler, was in many ways a Church within a Church. This is because the denominational institutions of the day were gathered under an artificial structure lead by a political bishop. It is also because its ideology and theology were attached to the German government‘s ideology.

Only those who resisted the artificial structure and denied the prevailing ideology and theology existed as the body of Christ. They became a Church within a Church.

Sinful and often failing, yet hid in the righteousness of Christ, they, from our historical perspective, can be seen as the faithful body of Christ.

The ideology of the compromised German Church was racist and nationalistic, the theology was liberal, denying the unique Lordship of Christ and the revelation of God found only in the Holy Scripture. By merging the two positions the German Christian’s provided themselves a basis for revering Hitler while rejecting both the Hebrew Bible and its Jewish people.

In the last posting of my series the “Church within a Church,” I wrote about two confessional statements that were written by the Confessing movement before the Free Synods were called. In this posting I will write about one of two statements that were written during the time of the “synodical movement.” In my next posting I will write about the second one which also entails the manipulative actions of the German Christians toward their brothers and sisters in the Confessing Church.

All of the statements, before and during the time of the Free Synods, are concerned with the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the form or structure of his Church.

The very first Free Synod, held in Barmen, produced a declaration that was the closest of all the statements to the Barmen Declaration. Like the Barmen Declaration, its author was Karl Barth. It was “The Declaration Concerning the Right Understanding of the Reformation Confessions of Faith in the German Evangelical Church of the Present.”

The Declaration first addresses an error. The error:

"It consists in the opinion that beside God’s revelation, God’s grace, and God’s glory, a justifiable human arbitrariness also has to determine the message and form of the Church, that is to say the temporal way to eternal salvation.”

Here the Declaration uses both the picture of the medieval Pope and the “fanatics” that the Reformation Confessions rejected. This is about the structure of the Church and its unity which is found in its confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. In other words rather than a unity that is demanded by human institutions (the Pope)or human ideals (the Fanatics), unity would be found in the Church’s confession of Jesus Christ as her unique Lord.

Next the Declaration speaks of “The Church Under Holy Scripture.” After insisting that the Old and New Testament are a unity, the Old witnessing to “the coming of Jesus Christ,” the New to “Jesus Christ who has come,” the Declaration defines for the Church those events that count as God’s activity. That is, God’s activity is seen in his action in Jesus Christ “testified to by Holy Scripture,” rather than God’s activity seen in current events.

Under “The Message of the Church,” the Declaration speaks of God’s grace and mercy in Jesus Christ. It is a rejection of any kind of justification or sanctification accomplished by doing good works.

The last part of the Declaration is about the “Form of the Church.” Here once again is an insistence that the form of the Church flows out of its head which is Christ. The Church is “called, assembled and upheld, comforted and ruled, by the Lord himself through the ministry of proclamation.”

The Church’s message and form is “one and the same in different times, races, peoples, states, and cultures. The justification for differences in Churches in this or that place depends upon whether they are consistent with the unity of the Church’s message and form.”

This meant that the German Christians’ insistence that there be a German Church aligned with German culture and a rejection of the Hebrew Bible and its Jewish authors was not consistent with the Church’s message. This meant that the German Christian’s insistence on a human authority along side Jesus Christ was not consistent with the Church' form and was rejected.

Differences in Churches are justified when they are consistent with the Church’s message which is the gift of grace. As Barth puts it under “The Church’s Message":

“The gift of grace is our membership in Jesus Christ: in him we are justified by the miracle of faith which ever again excepts the forgiveness of sins, which has taken place in him. And in him we are sanctified by the miracle of obedience that ever submits itself to the judgment and direction of the commandment, which comes from him.”

All quotes taken from The Church's Confession Under Hitler, Arthur C. Cochrane.

A Painful Day at Sacramento's Presbytery meeting: Up-Date

This is the update--I have this part wrong, "that Roseville, on Sept. 11 won the appeals case,"

I misunderstood. After checking with a friend this is the right information: "the appeals process against the decision of the Roseville/Fair Oaks superior court case has not yet begun The cases for the two churches were consolidated, remember; and the synod was granted permission to intervene; and the final judgment was reached at the initial level. So now we wait – I don’t know if the synod has already begun filing paperwork or not. It will be a process of probably over a year, once that happens. So continue to keep us in prayer." (I have changed my text below.)

Saturday, the twentieth of September, was certainly “a day the Lord made” and I am grateful for the day simply because his sovereignty is always over all of our affairs. But this does not mean that we are always obedient to the Lordship of Christ.

I was in pain yesterday from shingles, but there was a deeper pain, which was experienced by many Evangelicals at Sacramento Presbytery's meeting.

Yesterday, the twentieth, Sacramento Presbytery voted on a resolution to ask the Synod of the Pacific to appoint an administrative commission to act on behalf of the Presbytery regarding the suits by the First Presbyterian Church of Roseville and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church. (And other pending and future suits) My Presbytery passed the resolution after almost three hours of new motions, attempts at amendments and debate.

One of the amendments was an attempt to confine the administrative commission’s concerns to only Roseville and Fair Oaks. It did not pass.

My Pastor, Dr. Donald Baird, offered a substitute motion that would have fulfilled the "gracious witness resolution" passed by General Assembly. It was defeated.

In the midst of our deliberations we found that the directive by our Synod’s PJC for the leaders of our presbytery to file an appeal in the case that Roseville had won was not a legal or binding move. They did not have to file the appeal. That did not seem to matter to those pushing this resolution.

There were other painful actions at this presbytery meeting. Perhaps the most painful was the refusal of the Council on Ministry to renew the contract with a Pastor of a very small church . It is a development funded Church in our Presbytery. The Pastor has been an unwavering leader among the Evangelicals in this Presbytery. He has also been a faithful and kind brother to all in the Presbytery, and his session and congregation have tried for two years to get the Council to allow him to be their permanent pastor.

After a member of the Church, myself, and another Presbytery member protested, Dr. Keith Posehn, the pastor of the Church, walked down to the microphone and said he had to honor the Council's motion. The Moderator was silent asking another member to hold his question. Then he told us that that was the bravest action he had ever witnessed. Pastor Baird prayed a very beautiful prayer of healing for all of us.

The Presbytery voted on this motion and passed it. All may correct me if they care to but I call this persecution.

Some Evangelical and orthodox Presbyterians are writing about realignment (theological synods rather than regional synods) or various means for staying in the Presbyterian Church(USA) and still being faithful to Jesus Christ. After Saturday’s Sacramento Presbytery meeting I believe, at least for such presbyteries as Sacramento, that may be a very important option for the orthodox and Evangelical Christian.

Sacramento Presbytery and an administrative commission

I am ashamed to announce that on Saturday, the twentieth of September, the Sacramento Presbytery will be voting on a resolution to ask the Synod of the Pacific to appoint an administrative commission to act on behalf of the Presbytery regarding the suits by the First Presbyterian Church of Roseville and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church. It can be found on the Sacramento Presbytery page.

It will hopefully be remembered that the Presbytery had settled the dismissal of those Churches in a gracious manner until a complaint was filed by the pastors of Westminster Church in Sacramento. When the Churches then won their case in court and the Presbytery voted not to appeal the pastors once again filed a complaint.

I wrote about that here A Dis-heartening Action involving the Synod of the Pacific . In light of the passage of item 04-28 a "gracious witness resolution" offered by General Assembly commissioner Robert Austell and passed by the GA, this is becoming a shameful episode in our presbytery's life.

Because the Presbytery Docket file is so large I am placing the resolution here:

"RESOLUTION RELATING TO
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ROSEVILLE V. PRESBYTERY OF SACRAMENTO
AND
FAIR OAKS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH V. PRESBYTERY OF SACRAMENTO

WHEREAS, the Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church and First Presbyterian Church of Roseville (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") have heretofore initiated the above-captioned suits (collectively, the "Original Suits") against the Presbytery of Sacramento (the "Presbytery") to quiet title in certain real property; and

WHEREAS, the Original Suits have been consolidated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer as Case No. SCV 20758; and

WHEREAS, the Synod of the Pacific (the "Synod") has filed a motion for leave to file its complaint in intervention in connection with the Original Suits, which motion has been granted; and

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008, a judgment was entered in the Original Suits in favor of the Plaintiffs; and

WHEREAS, if an appeal (the "Appeal") is to be taken, notice of appeal must be filed no later than 60 days after the entry of judgment, which will be November 10, 2008; and

WHEREAS, certain other churches have threatened suit or may in the future initiate suits to quiet title in certain other real property (the "Additional Suits"); and

WHEREAS, the Presbytery has incurred substantial expenditures in connection with the defense of the Suits and is financially incapable of funding the Appeal and/or the defense of the Additional Suits; and

WHEREAS, the issues in the Original Suits and the Additional Suits (collectively, the "Suits") involve or may involve the validity and enforceability in the State of California of the trust clause of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (G-8.0200) and, upon appeal, it is likely that the law of the State of California will be interpreted in a way that will establish precedent applicable to Presbyterian churches throughout the State of California; and

WHEREAS, the Synod of the Pacific is a regional governing body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that has jurisdiction over six presbyteries within the State of California and is "responsible for the mission of the church throughout its region," (G-12.0102), having the responsibility and power "b. to initiate mission through a variety of forms in light of the larger strategy of the General Assembly; . . .e. to develop and provide resources as needed to facilitate the mission of its presbyteries. . . . j. to provide services and programs for presbyteries . . . . within its area that can be performed more effectively from a broad regional base;" and

WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth above, it is more appropriate that the Synod, as a higher governing body, having access to greater resources and having a larger territory of jurisdiction
within the State of California, be responsible for the defense of the Trust Clause by means of the Appeal;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Presbytery hereby petitions the Synod to appoint an administrative commission under G-9.02503, with the power to act on behalf of the Presbytery in all matters related to the Suits, including the Appeal and to provide or obtain funding in connection therewith..
# 5604578_v2 "

A good answer to this problem of property is offered by Rev. Mark Roberts here The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 4

Please pray for Sacramento Presbytery.

Christian Blogging About the Election: Up-Date!

See bottom of this post for up-date:

I don't usually do postings or write on political issues especially not on elections of the President of the United States. But after reading several blogs that hold my interest and thinking hard about it I have decided to do a post with a few links about the election.

The reason I am doing this is because of such issues as fairness, integrity and a Christian's attitude about politics in America. First of all to be up front about it, I am a Democrat who usually votes pro-life if it is possible to do so. And just to show you how adamant I am about integrity and fairness I will tell a funny story on myself.

Quite a few years ago, with the usual happening in California, a governor's race with no pro-life candidate, I noticed that one of the pro-life groups was pushing a candidate who was connected to David Duke's (read neo-Nazi) party. They of course didn't know the particulars, but because I write on racist issues I did, and called and told them so. It was too late; they had already published and couldn't retract. I called the Sacramento Bee who sent someone to my house to pick up materials I had on the subject.

But the out-come was that it was simply someone who writes a column who was interested. And she was interested in what I had said, not my information on a bad candidate. What did I say, "I am so discouraged I think I am going to write-in Mother Teresa's name for Governor." So the next day in the paper in the column were my words about writing in Mother Teresa's name. And on voting day one of my daughters heard a voting worker say "have you noticed anyone writing in Mother Teresa's name yet." I hope the volunteers weren't looking! (And I won't tell if I did or not.)

So this is about Christian blogs and some of their political thoughts. The first blog is an official blog for the PCUSA. It is the National Network Of Presbyterian College Women. It is Network Notes. Noelle Tennis Gulden, the staff person for the college women, has written this particular post and it is about Sarah Palin. The post is Weighing in on Palin

The post bothered me but mostly because of the article Ms Gulden linked to. The article was written by Mary Hunt a radical Catholic feminist who was neither kind nor honest about the new Vice-Presidential Candidate.

There are interesting comments including Ms Gulden's explanation of why she linked to the article. ( I must admit that I am also concerned because this is an official blog and I know that there are Presbyterian college women who are Republican and/or at least tend to vote that way and might be discouraged about finding themselves on the outside of the NNPCW.) I also commented and I must confess I was somewhat upset when I did, so I apologize if I am too strident in my comments.

There are two other blogs I have linked to. They are both Southern Baptist Pastors and given their conservatism I believe they are two of the most gracious postings on the election I have read.

The first is by Thabiti Anyabwile who pastors in the Cayman Islands. His blog is Pure Church. The title of his post is " A Proposal for Christian Bloggers Interested in Politics" at A Proposal for Christian Bloggers Interested in Po...
Anyabwile's proposal is that Christian bloggers make their pick of who they will vote for and then blog about them whenever they are dishonest or unkind to their opponent. Here are a few of his words:

"Well... it's happened. We all knew that it would. The national campaign for president has taken a nasty turn. For the first time in years, we had two candidates that looked as if they might fulfill their promise of a race with integrity and some measure of cleanliness. Well, okay, that was a brief and fleeting moment as both candidates tried and usually did take relatively high ground during the primaries."

The next is by a Pastor in Boulder Colorado, Scott Kelly. His blog is Views from the Grass. He has two postings that are very helpful. One is on Sen. Barack Obama and his book The Audacity of Hope. At Book Review: Audacity of Hope you will find a fair assessment with both kind words for Obama and words of disagreement. He begins with this:

"For the first time, a non-white person has a reasonable chance of becoming the next President of the United States of America. At long last, one of the major political parties in this country has nominated an African-American. Praise God!"

The second posting is about Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin. It can be found here: Thought on McCain/Palin '08. This posting also has a fair assessment and words of disagreement. And this is how Kelly begins:

"For the first time, a woman has a reasonable chance of becoming the next Vice-President of the United States of America. At long last, the Republican party has nominated a woman. Praise God!"

So I am hoping that all Christian bloggers will write with political and Christian integrity about the candidates and the issues. Because presidents come and go but Jesus Christ is king forever.

Up-date: Ms Gulden of Network Notes has removed her posting about Sarah Palin and the new one Who's Looking Out for Michelle? I thank her for doing so!