The chief caveat I think in embracing panentheism is that we have to carefuly discern when we are making the mistake of confusing our ego-self with God. earl
Oooh, big nail, bang on the head!
I'm part-way through a response to this very question by Path-Of-One ... I think some here might be pleasantly surprised!
One point though:
Meister Eckhart was (I would argue), and considered himself to be, entirely orthodox ... so we must pose the question: If in his speculations he knowingly began preaching that which was not Church doctrine, then the honourable thing to do is shut up, or ship out. If he remains in orders, then he is either a coward, or a charlatan, neither of which are a good character reference for a speculative mystic. If unwittingly in error, then his speculations are all undermined.
Matthew Fox, for example, saw this paradox and so left the Dominican order to continue teaching his own message.
I would argue that Eckhart was orthodox, and loyal. He studied first at the Dominican
Studium in Cologne, made famous by Albertus Magnus — in fact he studied the works of Albertus, and we have a text attributed to Albert which most people would assume to be Eckhart's, if they heard it.
Eckhart's fame, like Origen's, although in no small part due to the depth of his insight, is in some part due to his teachings being easily misconstrued and claimed as 'correct' by many who would would refute the orthodox doctrine, and also in some part to his notoriety for having come under scrutiny and indeed for having some of his works condemned.
As Eckhart himself claims loyalty and fidelity to the Church, and as I believe he is neither charlatan, coward or unwise, I support and am loyal to his claim of orthodoxy, and therefore must assume that any heterodox interpretations of his works to be erroneous in their assumption of his meaning.
He would expect nothing less, I'm sure.
Thomas