 Further, describing the God–world relation by use of the term “in” lacks precision in understanding the ontological nature of the relation due to the variety of meanings of “in”. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling used the phrase “Pan+en+theism” in his “Essay on Freedom” in 1809 where the “en” meant inherence as strong ontological dependence and referred to participation as a relation to the divine (Clayton 2008a, 169). Karl Krause (1781–1832) created the German term translated as “panentheism” seeking to overcome the split between humanity and nature that was expressed both in the supernaturalist theism epitomized by Leibniz and the naturalism of Spinoza’s pantheism (Gregersen 2004, 28). Metaphysical understandings of God’s relation to the world have been proposed that are more precise than metaphors or “in”. Schelling’s German idealism understood God as freely unfolding emanation by introducing subjectivity. Emanation avoids ontological separation between God and the world because the world participates in the infinite as its source (Clayton 2000, 477–481). Krause understood the world’s participation in God both ontologically and epistemically. The particularity of each existent being depends upon the Absolute for its existence as what it is (Göcke 2013a, 372). Keller offers another metaphysical understanding by arguing for creation out of chaos. She rejects substance metaphysics and describes the relation between God and the world as a complex relationality involving an active indeterminacy and past realities (2003, 219). Finally the science and religion discussion provides another metaphysical understanding by drawing upon scientific concepts of supervenience, emergence, downward causation, and entanglement to provide a ground for theological concepts of God’s relation to the world.