transcendence : immanence
The biblical authors of course never use these particular
words. The Old Testament usage of two expressions, 'Elohim' and
'Yahweh' reflects something of this polarity as do the terms
'Son of God' and 'Son of man' in the New Testament. However the
clearest incidence of the concept is in the two narrative
cycles which concern us. The concept of transcendence and
immanence is fundamental to the two narrative cycles which form
the basis of this study: the creation story - Genesis 1.1-2.4a
and the series of messianic miracles from the gospels. Each of
these cycles espouses one aspect of the polarity: thus the
general outlook of the theology of 'beginning' is that of
transcendence, whereas Mark's overall perspective is that of
immanence. It is important to note that this does not prevent
the inclusion of the alternative polarity within the general
view of either author.
The creation theology announces the binary form of the
narrative in the opening inclusio '... the heavens and the earth',
whereas Mark uses the term '... to the other side' in a thoroughly
systematic way to indicate the analogous dichotomy in the
messianic series. The first step in analysing the form of these
texts must involve the recognition of their division
according to this simple binary pattern. Inasmuch as both the
Day series and the miracle series formally juxtapose three
distinct pairs of events, transcendence : immanence is
inextricably part of the concept of deity, 'God'. That is,
Trinity and the notion of transcendence : immanence require each
other. Thus the basic morphology of the six Days, just as of the
six messianic miracles, is that of two triads, 3 times 2.
If we include the Sabbath : Eucharist complex as part of both
series then immanence is immediately formally distinguishable
from transcendence, for there are just three transcendent
episodes as opposed to four immanent events. The actual division
in either case however, remains quite pliable, so that we can
speak of either ratio 3:3 acts of creation proper and miracles
proper, as well as 3:4 total number of Days and of
messianic 'events'.
Transcendence remains a provocative concept. Some individual
theologians and some contemporary schools, if they have not
completely sacrificed it, have substituted for it less polemical
expressions, 'the Unconditioned' for example. Transcendence
asserts as its primary idea the independence of God from the
world - or at least the external relatedness of God to the world
- whereas immanence insists on the relatedness of the
world and God, meaning that the world and God mutually influence
one another. The mention of the ratio 3:4 encapsulates one of
the three main exemplifications of transcendence, the space of
space : time. Accordingly we find that many explanations of the
concept of transcendence in particular rely on spatial
metaphors, conceptualising it in terms of 'the beyond'.
This is in keeping with its presentation in the Genesis
narrative. The other equally important instance of transcendence
is mind, the identity to whom the gospel of John refers as 'the
word'. The third instantiation of transcendence is perhaps
the most problematic of all for contemporary thought at least,
that is the (symbolically) masculine polarity of the anthropic
category male : female. In all three exemplifications, the
concept of the independence of the transcendent term must be
complemented by the notion of immanence which sees the same term
participating in its specific form of unity: the spatiotemporal,
the psychophysical and the anthropic.
This conceptual dichotomy, the notion of transcendence :
immanence, is essential to any discussion of religion along
comparative lines. Judaism and Islam are examples of religions
with strong if not extreme theologies of transcendence.
Certainly, Judaism presents a uncompromisingly transcendent
perspective in its outlook. Islam is a somewhat difficult case
as its angelology and doctrine concerning the prophets
demonstrate.
Hinduism, at various times described as polytheism and at
others as henotheism, is at some remove from this, as are
certain schools of Buddhist thought and Chinese worship of
ancestors. With the postulate of many Gods, or many successive
incarnations of deity (avatar) and the subsequent
devaluation of the idea, certain forms of Hinduism and some
theistic Buddhisms adopt the outlook of immanence virtually
exclusively so as to stand in direct opposition to the Semitic
religions. Christianity for its part, with its doctrine of the
'only begotten Son of the Father' occupies a position
literally midway between both extremes. That is, it remains
paradoxically committed to both perspectives, that of
transcendence and that of immanence. It teaches the unique
incarnation of God in Christ. In having an event of incarnation,
but only one, it mediates the extreme difference between the
exclusively transcendent perspective of Judaism, and the extreme
immanentism of the varieties of Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
The arrangement of the three forms of unity accords with the
categoreal paradigm, transcendence : immanence such that the
anthropic form of unity, male : female, represents the
eschatological form of unity; that is, it accords with the
various terms such as 'end', 'last', 'omega', et al in
the Christological formulae which are congruent with the
categoreal paradigm itself. Thus the anthropic form of unity is
the last to appear in evolutionary-historical time, as opposed
to space, the primordial ('first') entity brought into being.
The P creation narrative, in depicting the male : female
category as 'last' (teleological/eschatological), is in
agreement with contemporary science. We refer to it variously as
'eschatological', 'teleological' 'final' and so on for this
reason. This means that eschatologies in general are subsumed
under this category. In other words, eschatologies conform to
two basic types which are nevertheless in close affinity (unity)
with one another as is given by the anthropic form of unity
itself. These types are reflective of the two relata
male and female.
Christian metaphysics as a Christian theology of religion
thus identifies two broad groups which correspond to the
categoreal paradigm. For eschatological doctrines conform to
either principle, the eschatological feminine (immanent) or the
eschatological masculine (transcendent). All three Semitic
religions hold in common - albeit in varying degrees
- the doctrine of resurrection, whereas the Eastern
expressions of religious consciousness consistently propose
variant doctrines of samsara. The relationship
between these two families of religion recapitulates that of
the eschatological relata - female : male. Thus
the Christian, or at least the Markan, perspective, divides the
entire evolutionary-historical process of life on earth into two
epochs, locating the incarnation at their centre, as at the
confluence of the same. A perfect example of this is Whitehead's
claim of Christianity that 'It has the decisiveness of a supreme
ideal, and that is why the history of the world divides at this
point of time.' (Religion In
The Making, page 47.) The B.C-A.D. calendrical system,
which understood the incarnation as the axis of
(evolutionary-)historical time, was the work of the monk
Dyonysius Exiguus in the mid- sixth century. One of its earliest
uses is in one of The Jesus Sutras, The Sutra of the
Teaching of the World-Honoured One, which refers to its
own compilation in 641, (Martin Palmer, The Jesus Sutras, 2001).
The use of the eschatological doctrines of world
religions as the primary criterion for determining their
relationships and as an overall taxonomic principle is
tantamount to the recognition of a fundamental difference in
their understandings of time. These are usually referred to as
cyclical and linear, though of course it is possible to combine
the two. The significance of time - and so too of course death -
generally for religious consciousness is paramount, and the role
of the same in Christianity is first indicated in the creation
story. The significance of time vis-à-vis death, to
Christological doctrine is established in the introductions to
both The Transfiguration and The
Transformation Of Water Into Wine At Cana. Thus their
interpretations necessarily concern the hermeneutic of the P
creation narrative.
If the female : male anthropic form of unity is the last
of the three such entities to appear in the created world, and
if therefore, we describe it as the eschatological category of
the conceptual pole, how does it reflect the two differing
conceptions of temporality - cyclic and linear, as the rudiments
of eschatological doctrine and finally as the primary criterion
for advancing a theology of religion? It doesn't. The dichotomy
of so-called cyclical and linear temporalities cannot be mapped
onto the eschatological category. Nor shall I pursue the
frequent distinction to which biblical scholars so often resort;
that of kairos and chonos. I do not believe that
this is of any ultimate avail.
For all that, this fundamental tenet remains; the disparity
between symbolic masculine and symbolic feminine is
representative of a reality that pertains to the primordial or
archaeological. The various Christological formulae bring into
juncture the juxtaposed relata: 'beginning and end',
'first and last', 'the Alpha and the Omega'. This tenet of
Markan metaphysics pertains to the categoreal analogy - the fact
that there is a proportion of analogy between space-time and
male-female as between 'first and last'. However, this is not
reducible to the dichotomy linear-cyclical. It concerns the soma, the body as a
manifold of sentience or sense-percipience, and the two temporal
vectors according to which sentience functions: past-to-present
and present-to-future. The first of these, which is the analogue
to the symbolic feminine, comprises continuous inheritance and
conformity to past actual occasions; the second, the analogue to
the symbolic masculine, is the guarantee of freedom and novelty
in the given universe and involves a relationality between
present and future which is discrete rather than continuous.
This binary disposition of soma
as the explication of the two eschatological epochs, is
discussed at the conclusion of the second essay.
A far more significant distinction regarding the understanding
of time for religious consciousness in general, must be that of
actual, successive temporality and eternity, that is,
atemporality, as befitting the paradigmatic difference sustained
by immanence and transcendence respectively. The disclosure of
which belongs to the remit of the theology of acoustic semiotic
forms. This differential is readily evinced in the acoustic
semiosis, not without cogency, given the intimacy of the mutual
referencing between the acoustic and the spatiotemporal, their
analogous relationality. It is announced immediately and with
total clarity as the difference between acoustic (musical)
intervals of two kinds; the one, melodic, the other harmonic.
Melodic intervals occur within the bounds of an actual temporal
chain, one tone being succeeded or having been preceded by
another. Harmonic intervals on the other hand, are announced
simultaneously. These two fundamentally disparate occasions of
acoustic intervals suggest themselves as congruous with the
basic alterity manifest between samsaric eschatologies
and theistic eschatologies. The matter will be taken up in the
discussion of the acoustic semiosis. The evidently interactive
capacity of time and the 'timeless', or eternity, is already
portended in the incarnation of the logos.
Transcendence and immanence relate immediately to the
Christian doctrine of Trinity. Transcendence is an appropriate
synonym for the word 'Father'. In varying ways, both words
express the fact of the same identity in the Godhead. Some
theologians have seen in the expression "Father", concessions to
Judaic paternalism and sexism too unjustifiable to warrant its
continued unqualified usage. We can and ought to speak of the
same identity by means of the term 'the Transcendent', even
while the term transcendence denotes equally the
identities of the Son and the Holy Spirit. So also, while the
term immanence is applicable to the Trinity, it is particularly
appropriate to the Holy Spirit. That is to say, that the
necessary tension implicit in the relation transcendence :
immanence (and analogously beginning : end), is expressed in the
relation to these identities in God, 'Father' and Holy Spirit
respectively, and that it devolves upon the Son, who is
designated by the sign :
(logos) in the
co-inherence of these polarities. This ensures the discussion of
analogy as the procedure of rational thought at the heart of
Christian metaphysics. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is
indeed well placed to explicate the shift from forms of
religious consciousness which accept the principle of immanence
to those which rely on the principle of transcendence.
In this context, we must acknowledge three very
different occurrences in scripture of the sevenfold series, all
of which posit basic, theological doctrines of Trinity and
transcendence : immanence. These are the P creation story in
Genesis; the messianic series of the gospels; and again at the
virtual close of the New Testament The Apocalypse. In a clear
sense these three texts embody the various Christological
formulae 'first and last', 'beginning and end', 'the Alpha and
the Omega', as well as their formal precedent, the inclusio,
'the heavens and the earth'. Indeed among the last words of the
latter we find:
"Behold, I
am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for
what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and
the last, the beginning and the end." (22.12)
In this manner, The Apocalypse is the perfect, literary
foil to the P creation narrative. These
Trinitarian-Christological titles point to the identity of the
Son as the mediator of the contrastive yet conjugal polarities,
transcendence and immanence. That is, they are tantamount to the
Christological inflections of the expressions already noted: 'the heavens and the earth'
and the Markan formula involving '... to the other side'. The Apocalypse as
a whole, contains a raft of sevenfold series in consonance of
some sort with what we find in Genesis and the gospels. (So too
with the polarised (Christological) titles which we encounter
elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.) In the present study
at least, we shall be concerned only with Genesis and the
gospel. The reasons for this will become apparent later. It is
obvious even on a cursory reading of The Apocalypse, that it
effectively defers to both texts, the narratives of beginning
and end, the Genesis creation story and the messianic miracles,
regarding the latter as an end of a certain sort. It is
therefore necessary to understand the relation between these
textual cycles, the Days of creation and the messianic miracles
themselves in advance of broaching the contents of The
Apocalypse.
At the conclusion of the first essay we shall say more
concerning the relevance of transcendence : immanence to
eschatological doctrines and as typologically definitive of the
two basic families of world religions, those prior to the
incarnation of the logos, and those subsequent to the
same.
This page was updated 17.05.2022.
Copyright MM Publications.
© All rights reserved, including international rights.