Divine Immanence/Divine Transcendence

The term transcendence comes from a Latin word meaning “to go beyond”. It refers to deity as existing above, outside of, or beyond creation, on a different and higher order of being than are humans and other living entities. The term immanence also comes from Latin, conveying the polar opposite sense of transcendence; that of “indwelling” or “within-ness”. Deity is seen as being within the universe, a presence that permeates, saturates, or infuses the universe and everything in it.

Of note is that immanence is not related to the word “imminence” which means “about to happen,” although these two words are often confused. For example, many Christians expect that the return of Jesus to earth is imminent, while the Christian belief in the incarnation (of Jesus as G!d) is an extreme example of immanence.

In theology, long has there been a tension in the concepts explaining the transcendence and the immanence of G!d. Deists assert that: G!d created the universe, and is transcendent; separate from, and above, that which was created. G!d is not immanent, except at the time of creation. Miracles do not happen, either in biblical times or at the present, and prayer is not useful. Even if G!d were listening, G!d would not act.

Pantheists assert that deity is immanent, and permeates the universe, but not transcendent. It has no aspect that is beyond the universe. Deity may be permanently beyond our ability to perceive and conceptualize.

Panentheists assert that deity is immanent as an inner presence and power that permeates, saturates, or infuses the universe and everything in it (including the world and humanity, nature and human nature) from within. Deity is also transcendent; in addition to infusing the universe and everything in it, there is some aspect of deity that is external to the universe.

Theists visualize deity as transcendent, being separate from creation, and also believe that deity initially created the universe, and remains active in nature today. In general, many theists believe that deity suspends the laws of nature from time to time in order to generate miracles, and see prayer as a means of personal communing with the deity, offering thanks, and asking for special favors.

According to traditional Jewish theology, G!d is the transcendent creator of the universe, and G!d is also viewed as continually involved in human history (immanence). According to the Jewish Bible, G!d has been intimately involved in Jewish history from the beginning of time. To this end, the rabbis spoke of the Shekhinah (G!d’s immanence as a continual, hovering presence).

When we speak of divine immanence, we must ask, in what sense is G!d in the universe? Plato, a realist, thought of G!d as the “World Soul,” whose body is the entire cosmos of non-divine things and persons. Does our mere contemplation of the world make us immanent in that world? When we remember past experiences, does that put our present consciousness back into those experiences? Is it the creatures’ awareness of G!d, not G!d’s awareness of them, that constitutes the divine presence in the universe? And if G!d is universally present, then are the creatures, however inadequately, aware of G!d? This implies that every creature has some form of awareness.

We, the created, are not simply finite; each of us is a mere fragment of the finite. The entire cosmos may be spatially finite; and even a beginning-less past would be in a sense finite compared to the infinity of all that is conceivable. Can any knowledge by finite creatures truly consider the Absolutely Infinite? What we are, and what G!d cannot be, is fragmented. But what of finite? Can G!d also be finite? And what of Infinite Knowingness? Can the all-knowing be, in every sense, completely uncaused or unaffected? We, the created, are affected by others, and we affect others; we are cause and effect. Does it make sense to view G!d as the Cause of all, yet the effect of nothing? As Aristotle said, knowledge of contingent things is conditioned by the reality of the things known.

One final consideration is the concept of dual transcendence, wherein G!d in principle excels over others both in the sense that the divine nature is uniquely absolute and infinite and in the sense that it is uniquely relative and finite. This is not a contradiction. In Whitehead’s view, G!d’s “primordial nature” is simple, but G!d’s “consequent nature” is the most complex reality there is. The complex can include the simple. The absolute and infinite can include the relative and finite, without contradiction and without subsuming the simple. To this end, the concept of dual transcendence remains. Classical theism denies dual transcendence.

If G!d is both absolute and infinite, and also relative and finite, that, then, necessitates that G!d is not perfect and immutable. It implies a capacity to change and be changed. Does Divinity require an incapacity for any and every kind of good change, every kind of increase in value? Plato proposed the argument “G!d must be perfect, hence any change would have to be either for the worse or without value, meaningless.” This argument presupposes that we have a positive idea of a maximum of value such that no additional value would be possible. Plato’s phrase for this un-increasable, unsurpassable value was “absolute beauty.”

Radhakamal Mukerji, a leading sociologist of India, and also a writer on mysticism, said that G!d is unchanging in “ethical” goodness, but increases in “aesthetic” value. This distinction between ethical value as capable of an absolute maximum, and aesthetic value as an open infinity with no upper maximum, speaks to the idea of a deity both unchanging and yet in some respects able to change and also to be changed. This is possible within the concept of dual transcendence.

Dual transcendence indicates G!d's ability to fully and completely know that which G!d has created. Having been created with the capacity to feel, then, G!d must know our feelings. How can feelings be known except by the ability to have feelings oneself? Can mere intellect (i.e. a computer) know feelings, while having experienced none of its own? And if G!d has feelings, what kind of feelings?

Dual transcendence resonates deeply within my beliefs, that G!d is the grand integration of all Becoming, Holy Process, as expressed in Ehy!h Asher Ehy!h, I-Will-Be-What-I-Will-Be. G!d as Holy Process is the continual unfolding. We, too, are Holy Process of Becoming, the sum total of everything that brought us to this moment, plus our capacities to grow and choose, and become better, vibrating at higher, sacred, holy frequencies. 

This is the G!d I encounter and experience daily, the G!d Who already permeates everything, the G!d Who, like me, is in the process of becoming, the Cause and the affected. G!d is One, and G!d is not-yet-One. G!d is in the brokenness, and G!d is in the impulse to overcome the brokenness, and restore wholeness that lies latent within creation. 

The concept of dual transcendence has room for the G!d with whom I relate. G!d is both immanent and transcendent, both Infinite and finite, both absolute and relative, within the concept of dual transcendence. This concept of dual transcendence goes beyond classical theism.