Pantheism and Panentheism

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

But God is not the acting agent in these things. Man is always the acting agent, either drawn to God, or drawn to something else.

I've been talking about natural evil.

I am never inattentive Netti-netti, although you seem inattentive to my replies.

None of my recent posts deal with morality. They deal with natural evil. Yet you respond to my posts as though I've been talking about morality. That's why I introduced Anselm.

 

[Thomas]

I'm curious - isn't a core part of Panentheism that God is beyond all definitions and human constructs?

It seems so, and then offers a 'however' (it seems to me) that wants the best of both worlds. If so, make the case how, that's all I ask.

In which case, how does therefore attributing God as beyond our understanding somehow against Panentheism?

Its what panentheism attributes to created nature that I would contend with, as detailed above. If God is beyonf our understanding, it's an error to make that statement of created nature.

Christianity speaks of a radically difference between God and nature, whilst simultaneously talking of the most intimate Union between the two. God is utterly other, as it were, but it can reason its assertions, and its denials, logically and cogently.

The panentheist sees the difference between created essence and 'uncreated essence', not the Union between essences. As a Christian, all I see is a blurring so that there is 'uncreated essence' and ... illusion ... so the Uncreated is all there is, with an idea that is never fulfilled ...

Isn't it organised religion that very clearly defines God according to clear cultural sets and precepts?

As does everyone, else there would be no words to convey the idea of any order of theism, pure theism, pantheism, panentheism ... but Catholicism, at least, does not 'determine' God quite so emphatically as pantheism/panentheism.

Of course Panentheism does not offer a structured philosophical view - a core part of it would be that how can you describe the undescribable? How can you limit something beyond human comprehension to nothing more than a set of human constructs?

By having a philosophical language that can accommodate such views. That's why it's called metaphysics. Platonism has it, all the great spiritual traditions have it ... panentheism doesn't, apparently.

Again, no philosophy ... no view ... no structure ... then what is it founded on? What says it's not pure fantasy?

It's very easy to appeal to everybody when you don't actually say anything definite about anything (UK politicians have only just realised this in the last few years!)

However, many people want some degree of certainty or assurance of uncertainty - Panentheism as I understand it offers neither, but instead, offers uncertainty - a key for spiritual growth IMO.

I would argue faith without reason more often leads to fantasy, delusion, all manner of nonsense.

We hold that spiritual growth is by faith and reason together. My favourite theologians would dismiss panentheism without hesitation. Eckhart would give it short shrift.

There is a notice on one of the monastic paths on Mount Athos: "Even the trees are sacred", but a sacred thing is not necessarily a divine thing, but dedicated to the divine.

If I had time, I could probably argue modern panentheism stands along the line that rises in the Romance Movement's reaction to the Enlightenment, its literature in the reinvention of the Gothic, Faeries and Wicca, the Sublime in Art, the Spiritisms of the 19th/20th century, the New Age, neognosticism ...

Thomas

 

[dauer]

Again, no philosophy ... no view ... no structure ... then what is it founded on? What says it's not pure fantasy?

I'm not certain how many people in the thread are discussing a panentheism or pantheism in the absence of some sort of philosophy. Some are I'm sure, but Avi is partial to Spinoza. I'm partial to kabbalistic models. I don't doubt that p_o_o's view is more nuanced than "God is everything and then some." Same for Brian. The discussion in this thread seems to be panentheism in general rather than specific manifestations of it and the accompanying theologies.

 

[bananabrain]

oi dunno, oi gort lorst in all thet thar metaphysicalistic languageosity aboot fifteen pages back and now haven't gort the foggiest idea what you lot are on about.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Netti-Netti]

The panentheist sees the difference between created essence and 'uncreated essence', not the Union between essences. As a Christian, all I see is a blurring so that there is 'uncreated essence' and ... illusion ... so the Uncreated is all there is, with an idea that is never fulfilled ...

Thomas, please tell us: Who is this panentheist?

By having a philosophical language that can accommodate such views. That's why it's called metaphysics. Platonism has it, all the great spiritual traditions have it ... panentheism doesn't, apparently.

Seeing as you have not cited anyone who is a proponent of panentheism, I'd say that's a vague and meaningless claim.

Again, no philosophy ... no view ... no structure ... then what is it founded on?

More stabs in the dark.

What says it's not pure fantasy?

Some would claim that this is the nature of religion. It adds nothing to an understanding of panentheism.

.... when you don't actually say anything definite about anything

Why does this sounds familiar?

I would argue faith without reason more often leads to fantasy, delusion, all manner of nonsense.

Leading contemporary proponents are mathematicians and scientists. And no, I'm not go to do your homework for you

We hold that spiritual growth is by faith and reason together. My favourite theologians would dismiss panentheism without hesitation. Eckhart would give it short shrift.

Some observers say Eckhart was a panentheist.

 

[Avi]

Avi is partial to Spinoza. I'm partial to kabbalistic models. I don't doubt that p_o_o's view is more nuanced than "God is everything and then some." Same for Brian.

Dauer- thanks for re-focusing. I would like to learn more about these different manifestations of panentheism.

I meant to do some research on Spinzoa and post some of those ideas, I still need to do that.

 

[path_of_one]

OK. For me theology is defined as 'faith seeking understanding' (St Anselm), in that sense I always seek to understand what I believe. The more I understand, the more the Mystery unfolds. I suppose I view panentheism, like pantheism and most other theisms, as stopping points.

I believe there is a difference between understanding and defining- the former is a journey and the latter is embracing artificial limitation.

I find it interesting that you critiqued my use of "unfolding" with reference to the Divine as being too anthropomorphic, yet you use "unfolding" with reference to "the Mystery."

Finally, why are "most other" theisms stopping points but your theism is not? What makes the difference?

We say the Divine is beyond all attributes — hence definitions — like panentheism — are ruled out. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

If the Divine in Christianity is beyond all attributes, then why is there the doctrine of the Trinity? Does this not point to commonly accepted attributes of God?

The attributes we predicate of the Divine are born of our understanding. So I do not uphold the either/or, or the both/and ... they are both wrong.

Actually, what I mean by the both/and position is precisely this- that I understand God through my own limited perspective, so I need to be open to this experience, rather than defining where and what God is (and, by extension, Her attributes).

Conversely, the Christian doctrine of the trinity offers a complex belief about the nature of God that is generally supposed to be not based on one's understanding, but on the authority of the institution and its capacity to properly interpret sacred text. I fail to see how such a doctrine is open-ended, admits the human understanding element involved, and how it does what you say it does- move God beyond all attributes. By the very nature of defining God as narrowly three persons of one essence and all its trappings, this points to a particular kind of God with particular characteristics. If it did not, Christianity would arguably be much more like my own spiritual practice, and I would not be a heretic.

Because I choose not to limit God to any human being's experience- my own or others who have been invested with authority- I would widely be considered a heretic despite my personal relationship with Christ.

To me, it is a lot of nonsense to hold, on the one hand, a particular doctrine about God's nature, and then on the other to say such a religion says God is unknowable and is beyond attributes. In short, while more limited, this presents the exact same paradox that panentheism does- that God is both knowable and not-knowable, both having-attributes and not-having-attributes.

I don't have a problem with this paradox, but it seems that you do and wish to shore up the position that your own religion is uniquely superior in ways that are dubious given its actual tenets.

I'm not trying to be difficult for difficulty's sake- but rather saying it is a bit arrogant to argue (without evidence and with faulty logic) that one's own religious position is so much better, more valid, and more challenging than that of others'.

We say the closest you can get is analogy ... always remembering that analogy is the transference of meaning, not that one is the other.

What do you think panentheism is? Most panentheists hold, as a foundation, that God is beyond our comprehension and definition. Therefore, all expression about our experience of God must be made through analogy, remembering the difference between God and one's metaphors for one's experience. This is the only way one can communicate some of one's spiritual experience to another person, and ideally (in my opinion) this is done in a way that does not limit or guide another person, but rather opens their own gateway to the divine. This is why art, ritual, music, poetry, movement, and symbol are generally more effective tools of spiritual communication than mere language. This is why I think doctrine is a rather ineffective and even damaging way to communicate spiritual experience, and practice and art are better choices. The former necessarily transforms the analogy into a solidified concept, that generally becomes reified as God-Herself. The latter, on the other hand, offers no solid concept but rather a portal to personal experience of the Divine Mystery.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, please tell us: Who is this panentheist?

I'm working from a common definition of the term — it is after all a modificatrion of pantheism.

I do accept that panentheism seems to mean different things to different people.

Some observers say Eckhart was a panentheist.

And they would be wrong.

Thomas.

 

[path_of_one]

Maybe it would help if you put forth your definition of panentheism, Thomas. You keep saying panentheists think this or that, but clearly a lot of us who are panentheists disagree. It is conceivable that what you think panentheism is (and what you argue against) isn't coterminous with what it actually is to panentheists themselves.

The Wiki article (I think) is decent, as is this article:

Varieties of Theism: What is Panentheism? God is the Universe, but More Than the Universe

It is a mistake to say that panentheism is a "type" of pantheism- it is both a modification of other types of theisms (poly/monotheism) in which God is separate from nature and pantheism in which God is nature itself. Rather than propose a creator-God and Its creation, panentheism generally proposes a God that contains creation- that is, a God that is more force and process of creation itself. In so doing, all is viewed as inherently divine and sacred by virtue of its innate connection to and containment within God, though the sum of the parts of the all are not the same thing as God Itself.

 

[Snoopy]

Spinzoa

Is that a health food, like quinoa?

s.

 

[path_of_one]

Is that a health food, like quinoa?

s.

Sounds like a single-celled organism to me... maybe a type of algae?

 

[Avi]

I meant to do some research on Spinzoa and post some of those ideas, I still need to do that.

Is that a health food, like quinoa?

s.

Fine question Snoopy ?

Lets start with the SEP:

For centuries, Spinoza has been regarded—by his enemies and his partisans, in the scholarly literature and the popular imagination—as a “pantheist”. It is not clear, however, that this is the proper way to look at his conception of God. Of course, Spinoza is not a traditional theist, for whom God is a transcendent being. But does Spinoza's identification of God with Nature mean that he is, as so many have insisted for so long, from the early eighteenth century up through the most recent edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, a pantheist?

In general, pantheism is the view that rejects the transcendence of God. According to the pantheist, God is, in some way, identical with the world. There may be aspects of God that are ontologically or epistemologically distinct from the world, but for pantheism this must not imply that God is essentially separate from the world. The pantheist is also likely to reject any kind of anthropomorphizing of God, or attributing to the deity psychological and moral characteristics modeled on human nature. The pantheist's God is (usually) not a personal God.

Within this general framework, it is possible to distinguish two varieties of pantheism. First, pantheism can be understood as the denial of any distinction whatsoever between God and the natural world and the assertion that God is in fact identical with everything that exists. “God is everything and everything is God.” On this view, God is the world and all its natural contents, and nothing distinct from them. This is reductive pantheism. Second, pantheism can be understood as asserting that God is distinct from the world and its natural contents but nonetheless contained or immanent within them, perhaps in the way in which water is contained in a saturated sponge. God is everything and everywhere, on this version, by virtue of being within everything. This is immanentist pantheism; it involves that claim that nature contains within itself, in addition to its natural elements, an immanent supernatural and divine element.


Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This article begins by connecting Spinoza's G-d with nature.

The second paragraph starts out de-coupling panthesim from anthropomorphism. That is the part that makes most sense to me. He rejected the "personal G-d". He also disconnects from our understanding of psychological or moral notions based on human behavior.

He then distinguishes "reductive panthesim" (G-d is identical with everything that exists) from "immanent pantheism" (nature contains an immanent divine element, doesn't this sound like panentheism ?).

So far I like the way Spinoza thinks, anyone agree ??

 

[Thomas]

I believe there is a difference between understanding and defining - the former is a journey and the latter is embracing artificial limitation.

But panentheism is a definition.

I find it interesting that you critiqued my use of "unfolding" with reference to the Divine as being too anthropomorphic, yet you use "unfolding" with reference to "the Mystery."

I suppose of see the difference as an unfolding of Divine Revelation, as opposed to (as I read it) an unfolding of the Divine Substance.

Finally, why are "most other" theisms stopping points but your theism is not? What makes the difference?

One might say it's a matter of veils or manifestations. Christianity doesn't stop at appearances.

If the Divine in Christianity is beyond all attributes, then why is there the doctrine of the Trinity? Does this not point to commonly accepted attributes of God?

The attributes of the Trinity are those that are revealed by the Divine to enable a dynamism in our understanding of the interior life of God.

I fail to see how such a doctrine is open-ended, admits the human understanding element involved, and how it does what you say it does - move God beyond all attributes.

I fail to see how panentheism is an open-ended doctrine when it cannot explain itself.

Revelation must be accessible to reason. Philosophy is the reasoning of nature, theology is the reasoning of revelation.

By the very nature of defining God as narrowly three persons of one essence and all its trappings, this points to a particular kind of God with particular characteristics.

Whilst the Trinity is referred to as three persons, they are not in any way like separate individuals in the category God. The distinctions of person within the Trinity is one of relationship, and what these relationships describe is God's self-knowledge in a communicable but always analogical manner. Remembering always that the Father is wholly in the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and the Son.

Might I remind you panentheism is defining God as nature, with all its limitations ...

To me, it is a lot of nonsense to hold, on the one hand, a particular doctrine about God's nature, and then on the other to say such a religion says God is unknowable and is beyond attributes.

Well that's what everyone is telling me panentheism does. I keep asking how does one resolve the paradox, but no-one explains that bit.

In short, while more limited, this presents the exact same paradox that panentheism does- that God is both knowable and not-knowable, both having-attributes and not-having-attributes.

No, because there is an explanation: God is not His attributes, they are how and what the intellect perceives of God.

I don't have a problem with this paradox...

I do have a problem with paradox, as it points to an error, a lack of data or a deficiency of rigour in approaching the problem. I think panentheism generates a paradox that was resolved hundreds of years ago. I'm not arguing my religion, I'm arguing my philosophy. My religion is not the only religion to eschew panentheism.

I'm not trying to be difficult for difficulty's sake- but rather saying it is a bit arrogant to argue (without evidence and with faulty logic) that one's own religious position is so much better, more valid, and more challenging than that of others'.

I'm not trying to be difficult either ... I'm just asking is there any foundation to the definition of panentheism that can answer my questions. So far ... no, just people deflecting the question by having a go at Christianity and avoiding the philosophy.

I'm not arguing my faith ... just philosophy.

What do you think panentheism is?

I think it's a vague and indeterminate doctrine posing as not-a-doctrine to avoid questions it can't answer.

Most panentheists hold, as a foundation, that God is beyond our comprehension and definition.

There's the foundation of a doctrine. See?

But also that God is comprehendable and definable as the universe, or have I got that wrong?

This is why art, ritual, music, poetry, movement, and symbol are generally more effective tools of spiritual communication than mere language.

Well OK, but p[antheism is a doctrine, not a dance form ... I fail to see the relevance of this, although there's a lot in it that appeals. WE've gone off the point now ...

(I do however think you underestimate the power of language to move the person. Remember too that poetry is a language, so too is a symbol (which needs explaining or it is missed), so too is song ... Without language, we would not have art, ritual, music etc., to the depth and profundity that we have them today. And we'd have no science whatsoever.)

This is why I think doctrine is a rather ineffective and even damaging way to communicate spiritual experience...

But panentheism is a doctrine.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Maybe it would help if you put forth your definition of panentheism, Thomas.

OK

Here:
For pantheists, God and the material world are the same. Panentheism does not go to this extreme as it accepts an ontological difference between God and nature. In panentheism God is actively present in the material world, but not the same as the material world.

The term "panentheism" was first used by K. C. F. Krause (1781-1832), (In the German idealist tradition — re my comment about its origin in the Romance Movement)

In panentheism God and the world are inter-related. The stress is upon God’s presence in the world. Importantly a panentheistic interpretation of God will see God as changing, that is, a God which is mutable."
This last point is key ... if God is changing, God is susceptible to time and becoming — thus God is not aeternal, nor is God absolute, unconditioned ... God becomes subject to time, to movement (in the finite world), to the world, and this is a limitation upon the divine ... God is not all-knowing, therefore God's knowledge is limited, God learns as the world learns ... mutability implies subjectivity to all manner of condition, and the potentiality of corruption.

Such a God cannot be thus and equally and simultaneously not any of these things ... it's a logical nonsense.

Here
"According to Hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than jut a collection of cells, God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be though of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts."
Then the rules of mutability apply again. By the same analogy, if the 'body' develops cancer, something of God dies: God can be corrupted by the world.

+++

Here:
"Panetheism maintains that God has two "poles": actuality and potentiality. God's actual existence and nature is changing but his potential, what he can become, does not change."
Again, mutability, time, etc., etc. Here God 'evolves' ... And it refutes the intrinsic simplicity of God, renders God subject to duality , etc., God might not even evolve into what is potentially possible.

I think this is a radical anthropomorphising of God.

From Google definitions:
# With the exception of the Mustaali Ismaili, most Ismaili Shi'a Muslims believe in panentheism, meaning God is both reality and transcendent of it. While the figure of the Godhead is beyond this universe, the Godhead has created reality, which is the Imam himself. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism_(Ismailism)

# Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

# A doctrine that the universe is part of God, but that God nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe; A belief in all gods
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/panentheism

# (From the Greek pan-en-theos which means all-in-God) Like Pantheism, Panentheism includes the belief that God is in everything. The belief that the entire universe - substances, forces and laws -- is God - the universe is God's body. But, in addition, God is seen as transcending the universe. ...
Glossary of religious terms (Starting with "P")

# All (pan) is in God, yet God is transcendent over everything. (Notice the difference between panentheism and pantheism). Some would assume that as everything in the universe (positioned in God) evolves, this unbiblical God would also evolve and grow in knowledge and complextity.
Religious or Spiritual Terms

# "the view that deity is in some real aspect distinguishable from and independent of any and all relative items, and yet, taken as an actual ...
Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary

# God is the world, but the world is also in God, in the sense that God is more than the world.
A Glossary of terms

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

But panentheism is a definition.

...

I fail to see how panentheism is an open-ended doctrine when it cannot explain itself.

Agnosticism is a definition as well, but doesn't explain much either.

The attributes of the Trinity are those that are revealed by the Divine to enable a dynamism in our understanding of the interior life of God.

That's a matter of faith, though.

Might I remind you panentheism is defining God as nature, with all its limitations ...

That sounds like Pantheism - it's confusing that there is Pantheism and Panentheism, but both are profoundly different.

So far as I understand it, Pantheism equates God as the Universe, but Panentheism sees the universe as a mere fraction of reality, and therefore to limit God to the universe is to limit God.

But panentheism is a doctrine.

Not at all, there are no "holy texts" that demand a specific approach to Panentheism, nor is there any body enforcing such a viewpoint.

Panentheism - IMO - probably has far more in common with Agnosticism than any other approach.

While Agnosticism says "I'm not sure", Panentheism appears to say, "I'm not sure, but I am sure reality is too big for me to understand". Somewhat flippant, I know, but I'm trying to connect the points about unknowing and uncertainty between the two.

After all, if God is beyond human comprehension, if the universe is such a small fraction of reality, then how the heck can we even begin to describe anything metaphysically? To which our own subjective understanding only makes sense to our subjective selves. Cogito ergo sum, in a manner of speaking.

 

[path_of_one]

Thomas, what Brian said.

Panentheism is not a doctrine, just as agnosticism is not a doctrine. Both are approximate descriptors of the practitioner's approach to the Divine, not the Divine itself.

This is, perhaps, why this fails to make sense to you and why you feel it unsatisfactory as doctrine (due to it being vague and so on). It is unsatisfactory as doctrine because it isn't doctrine. It is satisfactory as a description of how I approach the Divine, and I leave doctrine alone entirely. One cannot have doctrine without some systemized belief about how the Divine works and what It is, and I don't have that. Instead, I have a body of experience and practice that I engage in but hold as a limited approach to an infinite Something. My discussions about God are descriptions of personal experience and possibility, not surety and definition.

Something like the Trinity is a doctrine- it is a systemized, formalized and defined way of understanding characteristics of God (be they interior or not) and there is a ton of other stuff in Christianity that is also wound up in God's attributes- substitutiary atonement and the relevance of Jesus' sacrifice, etc.

I have never been attacking Christianity, only pointing out that there is a difference between traditions with doctrines and traditions that only have descriptions of approaches.

Panentheism describes my approach to God- that I am open to experiencing God in everything and that I am also open to a transcendent God that is ineffable. But it does not put forth doctrine or definition about God. It points to the limitations of myself and the possibility that lies beyond these limitations. For me, spirituality is a journey that demands my openness to this possibility. Whether or not God changes, learns, grows, unfolds, and so forth is not the question. The issue is whether I am open to doing these things.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Such a God cannot be thus and equally and simultaneously not any of these things ... it's a logical nonsense.

God was characterized as immutable in order to justify a provisional concept of His perfection. It is nonsense to let a simplistic notion of divinity dictate our understanding of G-d's possibilities. To maintain this position in the face of what we know about an evolving universe bespeaks an irrational attachment to said notion of divinity. The idea of an evolving Creation without a Creator who is evolving along with His Creation is pure abstraction.

"According to Hartshorne....God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be though of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts."
​

Then the rules of mutability apply again. By the same analogy, if the 'body' develops cancer, something of God dies: God can be corrupted by the world.

The organization of the world is not subject to the vicissitudes of the finite forms. Your argument is false. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

"Panetheism maintains that God has two "poles": actuality and potentiality. God's actual existence and nature is changing but his potential, what he can become, does not change."
​

Again, mutability, time, etc., etc. Here God 'evolves' ... And it refutes the intrinsic simplicity of God, renders God subject to duality , etc., God might not even evolve into what is potentially possible.

I think this is a radical anthropomorphising of God.

I disagree. It requires no anthropomorphising of any kind to posit that G-d is evolving. As for G-d's intrinsic simplicity and "the rules of mutability," those are just suggestions from some Church philosopher in the Middle Ages, aren't they? G-d would be at least as complex as His Creation.

 

[Snoopy]

Sounds like a single-celled organism to me... maybe a type of algae?

Or a solo project from a member of a jazz-rock band

s.

 

[nativeastral]

This article begins by connecting Spinoza's G-d with nature.

The second paragraph starts out de-coupling panthesim from anthropomorphism. That is the part that makes most sense to me. He rejected the "personal G-d". He also disconnects from our understanding of psychological or moral notions based on human behavior.

He then distinguishes "reductive panthesim" (G-d is identical with everything that exists) from "immanent pantheism" (nature contains an immanent divine element, doesn't this sound like panentheism ?).

So far I like the way Spinoza thinks, anyone agree ??

it does seem an attractive philosophy as it conjoins mind and matter as necessary attributes of g#d in a substance monism [in contrast to descartes dualistic paradox] but we have to forgo any notion of freewill in his deterministic world, [isn't this what science are postulating anyway?]. So though we are finite and transient 'ripples in the surface of g#d' we are also necessary and therefore eternally a part of the only one substance which has infinite attributes, which, along with existence we are party to only two - thought [consciousness] and matter [or space].
Baruch Spinoza

though the nitty gritty of his system was refuted by leibniz
A refutation recently discovered of ... - Google Books

 

[iBrian]

Returning to basics, there are some good reference points on the Wikipedia page for anyone looking for religious, spiritual, and philosophical traditions in Panentheism:

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.[1]
Briefly put, in pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God." This means that the Universe in the first formulation is practically the Whole itself, but in the second the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God.[2]

It's also very interesting to see that Wikipedia page reference Panentheism as a core part in many native traditions on the North and South American continents.