Gender Theology

[Sochi]

What gender (if any) is God?
What gender (if any) are the divine persons of the Trinity?

Gender assignation is an accident both of language and culture. For instance, in Magyar (Hungarian) there are no gender specific pronouns. “He” and “she” as words don’t exist in that language. I think it is similarly so in some other languages, as grammars vary, and also have much to do with world view. English, for instance is linear and dualistic, making it very difficult to conceive of certain kinds of ideas. Unfortunately for English speakers, some of these are very pertinent to spiritual understanding. Also, patriarchal and matriarchal societies tend to have gender aligned gods. Our culture, and especially our Abrahamic religions, are very patriarchal, hence a “male” anthropomorphised god.

 

[Counterpoint]

Gender assignation is an accident both of language and culture.

Agreed.

For instance, in Magyar (Hungarian) there are no gender specific pronouns. “He” and “she” as words don’t exist in that language.

That’s interesting.

 

[ccmnxc]

I’d guess since that God is the source of all being and all positive traits are in Him formally if not eminently, I’d say He epitomizes the best of both masculinity and femininity.

We tend to use the term “He” because He isn’t an “it” but the English language doesn’t give us a whole lot of pronouns for a person without a specified sex without also making the person into something akin to an “it.”

 

[hu324b]

In my opinion gender is our earthly nature and is in all living thing for the continuation of life on the earth - in the next life there is no purpose for it - Gods creation has come to completion - the pleasure of sex is simply so we will know how to continue life"s creation - without it we wouldn’t know what to do.

Jesus says this - that we will become like angels - there is no purpose for marrage anymore - read about the brothers and the one wife and who would be her husband in heaven.

Luke 20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.66 They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37

Its hard to think past our human form - we want or assume we will take those attributes of being human into the next life. We will not need to eat or drink or procreate or any of the other things we do in this life with our new form which God will give us.

Just stating my thought on this and with what I have read in the bible of the life to come. I sure many will diagree and want to bring their Human attributes and the things we do on this earth into heaven

 

[Counterpoint]

I’d guess since that God is the source of all being and all positive traits are in Him formally if not eminently, I’d say He epitomizes the best of both masculinity and femininity.

Okay. It appears that you believe God is androgynous.

What’s the best of masculinity? What’s the best of femininity?

We tend to use the term “He” because He isn’t an “it” but the English language doesn’t give us a whole lot of pronouns for a person without a specified sex without also making the person into something akin to an “it.”

Agreed. Actually, the English language doesn’t give us any gender-neutral personal pronouns.

 

[Sochi]

Actually, the English language doesn’t give us any gender-neutral personal pronouns.

We have the word “it.” Problem there is that those among us who are not panentheists believe, due to the vagaries of unexamined human psychology and semantics, that God is 1) Aware, as in having awareness of, and 2) is a person, only infinitly “greater” than a human person, and that 3) being created in “His” image and likeness means “He” in some sense is like a person, or actually, for Catholics, three of them in/as one. So “It” probably won’t fly in the case of this belief system.

Also, English is at its root a dualistic, linear language which makes huge and not necessarily well founded assumptions about causality. That means that many relationships in our Mother Tongue assumed as 1/1 with Reality may not be so. (I’m really under emphasizing that idea by a very long shot.) Our language also lacks many modes of relationship, refinement, and even basic concepts available to say, a speaker of ancient Sanskrit. The significance of that is that you can’t think about what you don’t have a word for, save rather awkwardly. And this has been a persistent problem with expressing a mystical, or “realization” experience in nearly any language, and a particular problem in christianist denominations, given adamantine doctrine regarding the nature of the hypostatic union.

 

[Richca]

I thought it would be obvious that I am not talking about genitalia.

I am using the term “gender” as follows: “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” (source: Merriam-Webster)

So, let me rephrase the question I posed in the original post:

Is it possible to characterize God’s personality (for lack of a better word) as masculine or feminine? Or, is it possible to characterize any of the divine “personalities” as masculine or feminine? (Clearly, Christian tradition has referred to God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - in strictly masculine terms.)

As God is the author and creator of both male and female human beings and their personalities, I think their must be some likeness of these personalities in God as whatever God creates is a manifestation of His Being in some way. The CCC#239 says:

“By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.”

We know that the first person of the Trinity is God the Father and the second person of the Trinity is God the Son. I think obviously, the likeness in human beings to God the Father and God the Son would be in the male sex. Scripture also refers to God’s love for us as being more tender than that of a mother for her children such as it is written in Isaiah 49:15:
Can a mother forget her infant,
be without tenderness for the child of her womb?
Even should she forget,
I will never forget you."

St Maximilian Kolbe, the great apostle of Mary and a theologian, says that there is a certain divine matenity of love in the Trinity which he places in the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the Love of the Father and the Son and we especially ascribe love to mothers. The saint says that the Blessed Mother Mary is the manifestation in the created world of the Holy Spirit and this divine maternity of love.

 

[Counterpoint]

We have the word “it.” Problem there is that those among us who are not panentheists believe, due to the vagaries of unexamined human psychology and semantics, that God is 1) Aware, as in having awareness of, and 2) is a person, only infinitly “greater” than a human person, and that 3) being created in “His” image and likeness means “He” in some sense is like a person, or actually, for Catholics, three of them in/as one. So “It” probably won’t fly in the case of this belief system.

Panentheism (which literally means “All in God-ism”) is not incompatible with the belief in a personal God. In fact, it presupposes it.

 

[Counterpoint]

“By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.”

Okay. “Trranscendence” is a masculine trait. “Immanence” is a feminine trait.

We know that the first person of the Trinity is God the Father and the second person of the Trinity is God the Son. I think obviously, the likeness in human beings to God the Father and God the Son would be in the male sex. Scripture also refers to God’s love for us as being more tender than that of a mother for her children such as it is written in Isaiah 49:15:
Can a mother forget her infant,
be without tenderness for the child of her womb?
Even should she forget,
I will never forget you."

Also, Matthew 23:37.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matthew 23:37

But such scriptural references are far and few between.

St Maximilian Kolbe, the great apostle of Mary and a theologian, says that there is a certain divine matenity of love in the Trinity which he places in the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the Love of the Father and the Son and we especially ascribe love to mothers. The saint says that the Blessed Mother Mary is the manifestation in the created world of the Holy Spirit and this divine maternity of love.

It sounds like he was fllirting dangerously close to “sophiology” (or “sophianism”) - the view that Mary is the incarnation of the divine wisdom. (To be sure, “wisdom” or “sophia” is personified in strictly feminine terms in Proverbs 8 and 9. The deuterocanonical “Book of Wisdom” is even more explicit.)

 

[Sochi]

Panentheism (which literally means “All in God-ism”) is not incompatible with the belief in a personal God. In fact, it presupposes it.

Pretty much not my understanding of the word. Sounds more like pantheism. How’d you arrive at the “-en-” part? See, I would have translated it as God as ALL ism, and if genuine, without the “ism.” Was wondering, also, from your language. You subtly don’t talk like any panentheists I know, but my experience is anecdotal. So I’m curious. You can PM me, as this will be taken as “off topic,” I’m pretty sure. On the other hand, no answer required. Personal observations and opinions on my part.

So my understanding is that panentheism explains why there is a belief in a personal god, and person as such, but is about a different than the usual christianist understanding of how those two are connected. In particular, it has to do with understanding the nature of the thinker. As my favorite Catholic panentheist put it: “As long as you believe you are a person, you will have a personal God.” The corollary to that kind of takes care of the gender issue permanently, whatever one’s language.

 

[Counterpoint]

Pretty much not my understanding of the word. Sounds more like pantheism. How’d you arrive at the “-en-” part? See, I would have translated it as God as ALL ism, and if genuine, without the “ism.” Was wondering, also, from your language. You subtly don’t talk like any panentheists I know, but my experience is anecdotal. So I’m curious. You can PM me, as this will be taken as “off topic,” I’m pretty sure. On the other hand, no answer required. Personal observations and opinions on my part.

Pantheism literally means “all is God-ism.” Panentheism literally means “all in God-ism.” Pantheism holds the divine is only immanent. Panentheism holds the divine is transcendent as well as immanent. (That’s the basic difference between pantheism and panentheism.)

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2]
(source: Wikipedia: Panenetheism)

So my understanding is that panentheism explains why there is a belief in a personal god, and person as such, but is about a different than the usual christianist understanding of how those two are connected. In particular, it has to do with understanding the nature of the thinker. As my favorite Catholic panentheist put it: “As long as you believe you are a person, you will have a personal God.” The corollary to that kind of takes care of the gender issue permanently, whatever one’s language.

I believe panentheism is compatible with classical theism. (Thomistic metaphysics holds that God is both transcendent and immanent.)

 

[polytropos]

I believe panentheism is compatible with classical theism. (Thomistic metaphysics holds that God is both transcendent and immanent.)

It seems like the task for the panentheist (or at least the panentheist-classical theist) would be to clarify what he means by “in.” God is nonphysical, so any preposition which implies spatiality in our normal usage must be construed analogically.

The classical theist might say that creation is “in” God in the sense that God is present qua primary cause and divine sustainer to all of creation. (Spinoza said that everything was “in” God, but he meant that there is only one substance, which is God, and which everything else is a mode or affectation of–drawing a pantheistic result from the “in God” idiom.) I’m not sure that the creation-relation on its own, though, really warrants the term “panentheism,” as this is a rather weak sense of creation being “in” God.

 

[polytropos]

Gender assignation is an accident both of language and culture.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? It seems to me like gender assignation has historically been rooted in biological sex; “male” and “female” have been assigned (until recently, perhaps) on the basis of physical, objective criteria. That these are reflected by language and culture does not seem to imply that gender assignation is accidental (if that is to mean non-essential).

For instance, in Magyar (Hungarian) there are no gender specific pronouns. “He” and “she” as words don’t exist in that language.

But there do not have to be pronouns in every language for gender assignation to be an essential feature of human societies; other words with the appropriate uses suffice.

Some languages lack words for specific colors. That doesn’t imply that speakers of such languages do not experience those colors or that they lack concepts of such colors.

In the case of gender, the point is even clearer. Languages that lack words for certain colors do not imply the cultural contingency of the distinctions between those missing colors. In the case of languages that lack gender pronouns, though, there is not even a general inability to express gender concepts, as there are other non-pronoun terms for doing that.So even less so than in the case of colors, the lack of pronouns in certain languages does not imply cultural contingency of gender assignation.

 

[Sochi]

Can you clarify what you mean by this? It seems to me like gender assignation has historically been rooted in biological sex; “male” and “female” have been assigned (until recently, perhaps) on the basis of physical, objective criteria. That these are reflected by language and culture does not seem to imply that gender assignation is accidental (if that is to mean non-essential).

So you mean to say God is a He because they had a physical, objective God to label? I only mean that God is thought of in many traditions anthropomorphically. Head of the “family” in a patriarchy, therefore “He.” Matriarchies had different ideas.

But there do not have to be pronouns in every language for gender assignation to be an essential feature of human societies; other words with the appropriate uses suffice.

In hungarian gender is known by reference to name, otherwise the referent is not gendered, a in perhaps “they who wear cloths are people.” they might be male, female, adults, children, it is not known until specified by clear context.

Some languages lack words for specific colors. That doesn’t imply that speakers of such languages do not experience those colors or that they lack concepts of such colors.

Yes, bu the concept would be something like “not quite orange and not quite red.” Or "That’s not what I meant by ‘eggshell!’ "

…the lack of pronouns in certain languages does not imply cultural contingency of gender assignation.

What does that mean??? Does it mean that people who don’t use gender specific pronouns can still tell a man from a woman, eg? Well of course they can. Back to my first paragraph. We tend to make God in our own image and likeness.

In the mean time, consider that there is a division in German about using gender neutral pronouns for God. Also, there is some question in the Bible itself: Genesis:1;27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Is God hermaphroditic? “Elohim” is plural feminine or masculine, and was used in Kings to refer to Astoreth. And so on, including this:

…there are other important factors to be considered as well. In an article titled, “Is God Female?,” Steve Singleton mentioned three of them:

1. God is referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.”
2. God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.”
3. This does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns have always had the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female, just as “Man” has been used for centuries to refer to both men and women (1978, 120[10]:154).
   These are critical points that must not be overlooked in responding to those who question the “gender” of God.

 

[polytropos]

So you mean to say God is a He because they had a physical, objective God to label?

I didn’t say anything about God in that post. I was only making a point about gender assignation.

As far as natural theology goes, the divine substance is immaterial, so my comments would be analogous to those I made to Counterpoint with regard to the “creation is in God” idiom. If the usage of a term is normally physical, then when applied to God it is used analogically. Like the preposition “in,” “male” pronouns would be used analogically in reference to God.

I would say that there are specific reasons to apply masculine pronouns to God, based on analogies between societies and families and the creation relation, though that is a controversial subject.

In hungarian gender is known by reference to name, otherwise the referent is not gendered, a in perhaps “they who wear cloths are people.” they might be male, female, adults, children, it is not known until specified by clear context.

Well, you probably know more about Hungarian than I do. I was basing my statement on this:

Hungarian does not have gender-specific pronouns and lacks grammatical gender: referring to a gender needs explicit statement of “the man” (he) or “the woman” (she). The 3rd. person singular pronoun ő means “he/she” and ők means “they”. Hungarian does distinguish persons from things, as the latter are referred to as az (it) or azok (those).

However there is a way to distinguish between male and female persons having a certain profession by adding -nő “woman” to the end of the word: színész-színésznő (actor-actress, lit. “actorwoman”) or rendőr-rendőrnő (lit. policeman-policewoman). This usage has been criticized by Hungarian feminists, as it implies that the normal word or profession is masculine in nature and must only be qualified if a woman is performing it. Wiki

What I meant was that there are still words for “the man” and “the woman”. You may know more about how those are used, though.

Yes, bu the concept would be something like “not quite orange and not quite red.” Or "That’s not what I meant by ‘eggshell!’

First remark: OK, that is still a concept that reflects an objective, ontological distinction in the world.
Second remark: I would deny that concepts are entirely sentential and linguistic. You have concepts for things for which you lack words.

"What does that mean??? Does it mean that people who don’t use gender specific pronouns can still tell a man from a woman, eg? Well of course they can. Back to my first paragraph. We tend to make God in our own image and likeness.

Well, you said that gender assignation was an accident of language and culture. We seem to agree that it is obviously rooted in objective features of human beings. So what can you mean by “accident” if our linguistic references to gender are objectively fixed?

It doesn’t seem to follow that we make God in our own image and likeness, in any case; we apply a concept that we apply to ourselves also to God (albeit analogically). We also apply the concept “being” to both ourselves and to God (again, analogically), and that does not constitute the making of God in man’s image.

Not to mention, given revelation there are specific reasons to regard God as masculine, namely the role he plays in the virgin birth and the fact that Christ was, qua man, a male. It can of course be disputed that these events occurred, but to take them as instances of a religion creating God in man’s image would be to beg the question against Christianity.

Also, there is some question in the Bible itself: Genesis:1;27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Is God hermaphroditic?

I would not say that God’s creating Adam (say) is a justification for referring to God with masculine pronouns, so there is no consistency in my denying that God’s creating Eve is a justification for referring to God with masculine pronouns. We obviously cannot predicate F of God simply because God creates something that is F, because God creates all kinds of things (trees, fish, rocks, angels, clouds…). So “man was created in the image of God” cannot mean that properties of God are also properties of humans, without qualification. So to infer that God is a hermaphrodite because God created male and female would require some other principle, which (as far as I can tell) is not forthcoming.

 

[Counterpoint]

It seems like the task for the panentheist (or at least the panentheist-classical theist) would be to clarify what he means by “in.” God is nonphysical, so any preposition which implies spatiality in our normal usage must be construed analogically.

What did the apostle Paul mean when he used “in” in the following biblical reference?

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Act 17:28

 

[polytropos]

What did the apostle Paul mean when he used “in” in the following biblical reference?

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Act 17:28

Well, take the context more fully:

22 So Paul stood before the whole council of the Areopagus and made this speech: 'Men of Athens, I have seen for myself how extremely scrupulous you are in all religious matters,

23 because, as I strolled round looking at your sacred monuments, I noticed among other things an altar inscribed: To An Unknown God. In fact, the unknown God you revere is the one I proclaim to you.

24 'Since the God who made the world and everything in it is himself Lord of heaven and earth, he does not make his home in shrines made by human hands.

25 Nor is he in need of anything, that he should be served by human hands; on the contrary, it is he who gives everything – including life and breath – to everyone.

26 From one single principle he not only created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth, but he decreed the times and limits of their habitation.

27 And he did this so that they might seek the deity and, by feeling their way towards him, succeed in finding him; and indeed he is not far from any of us,

28 since it is in him that we live, and move, and exist, as indeed some of your own writers have said: We are all his children. (emphases added)

A very beautiful passage indeed. Where does this passage place Paul’s theology on the panentheist scale?

From Wikipedia, bullets added for reference:

(1) In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself.
(2) In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent.
(3) In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe.
(4) Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God.
(5) In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn “transcends”, “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. … In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the concept of Tzimtzum.

I would suggest that Paul’s words are compatible with (2) and (3), which I would myself endorse. God is the animating force, the creative sustainer of the universe.

However, I think verse 24 tells against the stronger version of panentheism given in (1) and (4); in Paul’s theology there is a categorical distinction between God, the creator of the universe, and the universe itself. And (5), I’d say, is too vague, since the sense of “pervades” and “in” are precisely what need to be determined.

Now I think the context of verses 25 and 27 (bolded) allow us to read “in” in verse 28 as what I was talking about before: “God is present qua primary cause and divine sustainer to all of creation.” The passage stresses God’s proximity to us as our creator.

(I think elsewhere in Paul’s writings, and in some other New Testament books like 1 John, the “in” idiom is also used to emphasize the effect of sanctifying grace, although that does not seem to be going on in this passage.)

 

[polytropos]

Another interesting passage from Wikipedia:

Baruch Spinoza later claimed that “Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.” [9] “Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.” [10] Though Spinoza has been called the “prophet”[11] and “prince”[12] of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: “as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken”[13] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote “Deus sive Natura” (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God’s transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God’s immanence.[14] Furthermore, Martial Guéroult suggested the term “Panentheism”, rather than “Pantheism” to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, “in” God. Yet, American philosopher and self-described Panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza’s philosophy as “Classical Pantheism” and distinguished Spinoza’s philosophy with panentheism.[15]

I think the fact that Spinoza’s philosophy can be characterized as straddling the pantheism/panentheism divide (and thereby endorsing a very strong version of panentheism) suggests that classical theism (which differs quite relevantly from Spinoza’s philosophy) does not occupy a very strong sense of panentheism, though both Spinoza and classical theists like Paul will use the “in” idiom.

 

[Counterpoint]

Well, take the context more fully:

A very beautiful passage indeed. Where does this passage place Paul’s theology on the panentheist scale?

From Wikipedia, bullets added for reference:

I would suggest that Paul’s words are compatible with (2) and (3), which I would myself endorse. God is the animating force, the creative sustainer of the universe.

However, I think verse 24 tells against the stronger version of panentheism given in (1) and (4); in Paul’s theology there is a categorical distinction between God, the creator of the universe, and the universe itself. And (5), I’d say, is too vague, since the sense of “pervades” and “in” are precisely what need to be determined.

Now I think the context of verses 25 and 27 (bolded) allow us to read “in” in verse 28 as what I was talking about before: “God is present qua primary cause and divine sustainer to all of creation.” The passage stresses God’s proximity to us as our creator.

(I think elsewhere in Paul’s writings, and in some other New Testament books like 1 John, the “in” idiom is also used to emphasize the effect of sanctifying grace, although that does not seem to be going on in this passage.)

The verse explicitly states that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being” - a statement that fully expresses God’s immanence in the world. (No amount of spin-doctoring will sway me to think otherwise.)

I don’t know why this is so difficult to grasp. Take a dream for example.

Where is a dream? Answer: In the mind of a dreamer.

Does the dreamer transcend the dream? Answer: Yes, most definitely.

What’s the source of the dream? Answer: The dreamer, of course.

Who or what maintains or sustains the dream ? Answer: The dreamer, of course.

Do the individuals participating in the drama of the dream have their own personal consciousness and free will? Answer: Good question. It definitely appears that they do, at least from the perspective of the dreamer. But appearances can be deceiving.

 

[polytropos]

The verse explicitly states that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being” - a statement that fully expresses God’s immanence in the world. (No amount of spin-doctoring will sway me to think otherwise.)

I don’t know why this is so difficult to grasp. Take a dream for example.

It’s all well and good to repeat the clause “in him we live, and move, and have our being” and attach the term “immanence” to it, but that ignores that the clause is part of a larger sentence and point that Paul is making. Again: “27 And he did this so that they might seek the deity and, by feeling their way towards him, succeed in finding him; and indeed he is not far from any of us, 28 since it is in him that we live, and move, and exist, as indeed some of your own writers have said: We are all his children.”

If you are to draw any conclusions from the dream analogy, you would have to show that it is appropriate and that it does not limp (as all analogies do) when you need it to hold. But here you seem to run into trouble. Paul is using the “in” idiom to illustrate God’s creative proximity. His analogies is not that we should be construed idealistically as “thoughts” (or “dreams”) of God, but that we should be construed analogously to children of God. And while children are in close creative proximity to their father, they are not “idealistically in” their father in the sense that your dream analogy would require.

So you’ll have to forgive me for not regarding the strong-panentheist reading, which excises the quote from all of its context (even the context of the sentence it is in), as obvious, or even plausible. If you cannot be swayed, fair enough.