Panentheism is an approach that gains more and more popularity in both systematic and practical theology, as well as in philosophy. But what lies at the heart of panentheism? Could panentheism be the key to a valid contemporary understanding of God and creation? This article aims at illuminating the richness of panentheism whilst at the same time exploring whether this construct could enhance the interdisciplinary dialogue. The author of this article departs from the premise that it is the task of systematic theology to understand reality in a collective enterprise, together with other disciplines and even other sciences. A constructive empiricism could, when combined with the notion of social constructionism, lead to an understanding of reality where reality is more than mere idealistically conceived. Truth is therefore to be replaced with a pragmatic but value-laden concept of understanding. Therefore panentheism and both epistemology and ontology have to be reconsidered. It is the opinion of the author that panentheism can enrich both the dialogue between disciplines as well as the interaction between practical and systematic theology. However, panentheism then has to be even more radical and steer clear of the traditional meaning of space and time.

This article seeks to assess the general approach to a Christian interpretation of reality as popularly applied by Keith Ward. It is suggested that he employs panentheist criteria in his attempts to buttress a theological accommodation of both material and spiritual interpretations of reality. This assessment will take a general reformational theological approach. Suggestions will be included as to why panentheism has made such an impact amongst some Christians and why a bipolar approach to God appeals to some in the Christian community. Recommendations will then be made to be considered by those who may find the lure of Christian generic panentheism in different forms tempting enough to consider its interpretation replacing the traditional view of God.

Die doel van hierdie artikel is om die algemene benadering tot 'n Christelike interpretasie van die werklikheid, soos algemeen toegepas deur Keith Ward, te evalueer. Dit word voorgestel dat hy panenteïstiese kriteria toepas in sy pogings om teologiese akkommodasie van 'n materiële en geestelike interpretasie van die werklikheid te steun. Hierdie evaluering volg 'n algemene reformatoriese teologiese perspektief. Voorstelle word gemaak om te verduidelik waarom panenteïsme so 'n impak op sommige Christene het dat hulle 'n bipolêre benadering tot God verkies. Verder word aanbevelings gemaak vir diegene wat 'n Christelike generiese panenteïsme in verskillende vorme aanloklik genoeg vind om dit sodoende as 'n alternatiewe interpretasie vir die tradisionele siening van God te oorweeg.

This article takes as its point of departure two citations. The one is from Marshall and Zohar's contention that the wave-particle dualism is more than a metaphor and the other is from Clayton claiming that indeterminacy was not merely a temporary epistemic problem, but reflected an inherent indeterminacy of the physical world itself. What does it mean if it is not a mere way of speaking? The author of this article departs from the premise that the task of systematic theology is the endeavour to understand reality and that this is a collective enterprise together with other sciences as well. A constructive empiricism could indeed lead to an understanding of reality where reality is more than merely idealistically conceived. Truth is therefore to be replaced with a pragmatic, but value-laden concept of understanding or comprehension. This has the effect that both epistemology and ontology have to be revisited and subsequently panentheism too. The argument finds its niche in Old Testament wisdom literature and Proverbs 6:6 forms the lens of reference. The late South African ethologist Eugène Marais's epic work, The Soul of the Ant, is applied to illustrate such a proposed epistemic community.

The choice of the title for this article must be seen against a specific background. In the first place it had to do with the place and task of dogmatics, in which the doctrine on God and the doctrine on Scripture are most important. Dogmatics can be defined as the scientific system of the knowledge of God and God reveals Himself in particular in Scripture. Secondly, it had to do with the actuality of the topic. In the current debate there is an emphasis on a new view of God as far as his relationship with creation is concerned. The term used is panentheism. And as far as the doctrine on Scripture is concerned, the question of the authority of Scripture is always on the agenda. As far as the term panentheism (all in God and God in all) is concerned, distinguished from deism, pantheism and theism, it was concluded that in Scripture we do not find any identity or fusion between God and creation, as the advocates for panentheism (the New Reformers and Julian Müller inter alia in South Africa) plead. As far as the doctrine of Scripture is concerned, the focus is on the question whether the Bible is the Word of God or the experience of man. The author of this article found himself in full agreement with the Reformed confession as formulated in the Belgic Confession, Articles 2 - 7. On the other hand, the advocates for a new view about God (panentheism) deviate radically from the Reformed tradition. The focus and challenge for Reformed dogmatics lie in the maintaining of the Divine authority of Scripture. In his Word, God reveals Himself as both the transcendent and immanent God (theism). This truth has specific implications for the doctrine on providence inter alia. When Reformed dogmatics is practised in cooperation with other theological disciplines, philosophy, literature studies, et cetera, theology in the end becomes doxology.

Die keuse van die onderwerp vir hierdie artikel moet teen 'n bepaalde agtergrond gesien word. In die eerste plek het dit om die plek en taak van die dogmatiek, waarin die Godsleer en die Skrifleer 'n besondere plek inneem, gegaan. Dogmatiek is immers die wetenskaplike sisteem van die kennis van God, en God openbaar Hom in besonder deur die Skrif. In die tweede plek het dit oor die aktualiteit van die onderwerp gegaan. Daar word vandag toenemend gepleit vir 'n nuwe Godsbeeld, wat God se verhouding tot die wêreld betref. Die begrip wat gebruik word is panenteïsme. Wat die Skrifleer betref, is die vraag na die gesag van die Skrif voortdurend aan die orde. Wat die begrip panenteïsme betref (God in alles en alles in God), in onderskeid van die begrippe deïsme, panteïsme en teïsme, is vanuit die Skrif bevind dat daar geen ineenvloeiing van God en die geskape werklikheid is, soos die voorstanders van panenteïsme (o.a. die Nuwe Hervorming en Julian Müller in Suid-Afrika) bepleit het nie. Wat die Skrifleer betref, het die debat weereens, soos in die 16de eeu, saamgetrek in die vraag of die Bybel die Woord van God is of die ervaring van mense. Die skrywer se eie standpunt het saamgetrek in volledige instemming met die Gereformeerde belydenis soos verwoord in Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, Artikel 2-7. Die voorstanders van 'n nuwe Godsbeeld (panenteïsme) het egter in hulle Skrifleer radikaal van die Reformatoriese tradisie afgewyk. Die fokus en uitdaging vir die Gereformeerde dogmatiek lê in die onverswakte handhawing van die Goddelike gesag van die Woord. In sy Woord openbaar God Homself as die transendente en immanente God (teïsme). Hierdie waarheid het onder andere besondere implikasies vir die leer van die voorsienigheid. Wanneer die dogmatiek, in samewerking met ander relevante teologiese dissiplines en die wetenskap van die wysbegeerte en literatuurwetenskap sy taak verrig, eindig ware teologie in doksologie.