Michael Lodahl (Professor of Theology at Point Loma University) replies to my published critique of his notion that God is the “body of the world”1 in the same edition of the Wesleyan Theological Journal. His reply is called “A Response to Rodney Enderby” (hereafter RRE)2. I make the following comments in reply: Evidence for God as the “Body of Creation” Lodahl contends that my critique of his thinking, particularly as expressed in his book, God of Nature and of Grace (hereafter GNG) suffers from the serious flaw that the “notion that God is the body of creation” is not a central theme particularly in GNG and that there is “paltry support” for my conclusion that “God does not stand outside of nature but is fully embedded within nature” (RRE, 142). I would contend that although Lodahl only makes several references to the “world as God’s body” this does not mean that this notion is not central or even incidental to his thinking. Contrary to what he suggests, I would argue that the “world as God’s body” is foundational to his thought as a whole, particularly in the way he speaks of God’s immanence in the world. I will cite several examples of this. Prior to his comment that Christians ought to reflect on McFague’s provocative suggestion that the world is the “body of God”, Lodahl claims that God is “intimately present” and therefore knows nothing from a distance or at arm’s length. Lodahl then makes an analogy from our own bodies to demonstrate this point; that we “know and feel our own bodies not from a distance, but from within, in immediate sympathy” (GNG, 119-120). It is in this immediate context that Lodahl then refers to McFague’s comment referred to above. In so doing Lodahl seems to be connecting his idea of God’s “immediate sympathy” with McFague’s model of the world as God’s body. Moreover, in referring to McFague in such a positive way (i.e., “McFague’s provocative suggestion” (GNG, 120)), it seems that Lodahl implicitly finds agreement or at least strong sympathy with the notion that the world is “God’s body”. This conclusion is further supported in Lodahl’s discussion of omnipresence (“God being fully and ‘intimately present - - - in every place’ ”) and omniscience (“God knowing thoroughly and intimately all things and events in utter clarity and unimaginable thoroughness” (GNG, 122)). In the context of his understanding of these two terms, Lodahl writes: “we are again led to something like McFague’s model of the universe as God’s body. God does not know any event “at ‘a distance’, but from within, and indeed through the experiences (conscious or not) of all creatures (sentient or not”, (GNG, 122)). This statement appears to be very similar to Hartshorne’s panpsychism and that every object in creation is like a nerve muscle in God (HPS, 450-451 & MVGLT, 185).3 Lodahl comments in his critique that the language he uses that “something like McFague’s model of the universe as God’s Body” does not imply “an aim of theological exactitude” (RRE, 142). He insists that his use of the phrase the world as “God’s body” is not a “hardened proposition” or “not the prose of hard claims being offered as propositional truth” (RRE, 142). The downside of Lodahl’s claim here is that he can use language rather vaguely and when challenged about the implications he can then accuse his critic of “epistemological” or “theological” exactitude (RRE, 142). In so doing, Lodahl avoids dealing with the implications of the model of the “universe as God’s body”. In my critique of his ideas this is exactly what I was attempting to do, to draw out implications of a process interpretation of the world being God’s body, which Lodahl seems to largely accept. I would argue further that Lodahl’s whole discussion of creation in GNG presupposes the notion that God is “the body of creation” even if not explicitly stated. He states for example that “when Christian theologians, including Wesley, have considered carefully the meaning of divine omnipresence, it has been difficult for them to avoid the conclusion that God truly is the ‘place’ where the universe is happening, and thus also that the universe is in some sense the embodying of God. Such a conclusion is not offered simply as a useful model (as in McFague’s case), but as the implication of what it means for God to be God and the world to be God’s intimately sustained creation” (GNG, 135). It is interesting that in this quote Lodahl refers to McFague again. The “useful model” that Lodahl refers to appears to be an implicit reference to “God as the body of creation”. This would make sense given his previous discussion of McFague (GNG, 120-122). Moreover, Lodahl’s very description of God’s immanence in the world is more consistent with his process leanings. Citing approvingly of Wesle