As if the difficulties outlined in my previous post aren’t enough, it gets even more complicated. Messed up theological constructs prop up human brokenness and the two work together to hinder growth and faith. I’ve discovered a major incongruence in my theological understanding of God. It is necessary to hold two aspects of God’s existence in tension without minimizing either. These are God’s Transcendence and God’s Immanence. God is distinct from and over all of creation (Transcendence). God is interactive with all of creation day by day(Immanence). If we minimize Transcendence, we end up with a buddy who doesn’t deserve worship. If we minimize Immanence, we end up with a God who is altogether distant and disconnected from the human condition. “God is great. God is good.” (Transcendence) “Let us thank Him for our food.” (Immanence) The earliest prayers we learn as children teach us the value of holding these two concepts in tension.

I think we should blame Aristotle for the contemporary difficulties with managing God’s Transcendence and Immanence. Aristotle introduced metaphysical categories for what God must be like which have been diffused into orthodox Christian definitions of God’s being. Aristotle’s idea is called the Prime Mover. He recognized that for every effect there is a cause. Picture a domino falling (effect) as a result of the previous domino’s fall (cause). But that domino fell because of an even more previous domino’s fall. The sequence, if you let the imagination run wild, could go back for some time. Aristotle reasoned that this sequence of cause and effect couldn’t stretch infinitely into the past. There must be a first cause. As a first cause, this cause must be uncaused, and therefore necessary and self-sustaining. An uncaused, necessary and self-sustaining first cause must be perfect. A perfect entity must be changeless, because change must mean a change either from imperfection or towards imperfection. This uncaused, necessary, self-sustaining and changeless being is called the Prime Mover.

As the early church grew, and Semitic influence waned, Hellenistic ideas such as Aristotle’s, filtered as they were through the influence of Stoic and Platonic ideas, became increasingly influential in the worldviews of Christian theologians. When many theists discuss God’s immutability and sovereignty, they do so with definitions formed through absorption of Greek ideas into Christian thinking, which are not necessarily biblical. This is a subtle issue. Immutability and sovereignty are theological terms, which can be clearly defined in terms of biblical revelation. I’m not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting that we examine the definitions in light of biblical revelation to make sure when we use words like sovereignty and immutability that we mean something biblical by them. I believe we often mean something else entirely.

The problem with Aristotle is that he has reasoned what God must be like. Theists then, are compelled to hammer the square peg of biblical revelation into the round hole of Aristotle’s (and those that followed him) ideas. If God must be x, then biblical revelation must mean x. But what if Aristotle was wrong? I think he was. An unchanging, unchangeable, timeless god is not a personal god. Hellenistic thought assumes that change implies imperfection. This is a wrong assumption. Change is essential for personality. The Bible demands immutability in regards to God’s character, but not in regards to his dynamic personality. Additionally, the logical destination of the idea of God being timeless is determinism. If God exists completely outside of time, and if every moment, past, present, and future, is now to God, then God’s timelessness forces God’s sovereignty to demand determinism as a result. Human freedom is rendered meaningless, a charade at best. In light of these issues, all biblical revelation demonstrating God changing his mind, interacting with creatures, being relational, moving in sequence with a distinct before and after, are simply anthropomorphic – the square peg forced into the round hole. But the Bible never demands these assumptions of timeless unchangeableness. The Bible reveals the opposite.

The problem is Aristotle has just enough truth to be dangerous. The Prime Mover is necessary, uncaused, and self-sufficient. The biblical revelation supports this. But God is also dynamic, personal, interactive, relational and responsive. God’s Triune existence alone is enough to refute Aristotle and all followers. But his idea is insidious. For centuries it has crept into the Western worldview, and just about all of us stare at reality through his thick goggles – believing that the thing Aristotle says God must be is reality, and then trying to interact with God as He’s revealed in scripture. Our worldview allows for Transcendence but excludes Immanence. Our brokenness demands both. The Bible demands both. You can’t expect a God who can’t move to answer prayer. Simple as that. You can’t converse with a stone, even if you carve a face into it.

It’s time to take a fresh look at the common categories of classical theism, redefining, when necessary, the terms in light of biblical revelation, regardless of the violence this will do to Western philosophy and the theological libraries full of unbiblical ideas of God. It’s time to allow the present, personal, and dynamic God of the Bible, who remains completely transcendent, to heal our brokenness and fire Aristotle.