On Divine Paradox: The God who is truly New because he is Eternal and Unchanging

I had a conversation with someone today regarding some questions she was asked to answer about the image of God she held. The questions were posed in an either/or format: do you believe in  1) a God that is unchanging or 2) a God that seems to change? Do you believe in a God of  1) might and majesty or 2) one who can be addressed as Daddy or Mommy? Do you believe in a God that is incomprehensible or a God who can be known and even described? That kind of thing. The problem with either/or formats is they never do justice to the paradoxical nature of God. In fact they are apt to tear the paradoxical nature of God asunder and in the process lose the really amazing qualities of the God of Christian Tradition. Now, I suspect posing questions in an either/or way is designed to see where the respondent stands generally in their approach to spirituality and reality. Those asking the questions are probably not ordinarily expecting a tremendously theologically sophisticated answer which demands BOTH answers be given their due in a paradoxical form --- although they may well be hoping someone will surprise them with their answers in this regard. Even so, depending on the context, asking questions in this way may be theologically misleading. In any case I want to look a bit at the first question because it came up recently, though indirectly, in the post "Always Beginners". Throughout I will refer to the distinction between kaine (qualitative newness) and neos (newness in time) raised in that earlier post.

I have written about paradoxes here quite a bit over the past five years but it is time to say something about these kinds of questions and how one addresses them adequately because the answers are never either or but both/and, and even more sharply, one BECAUSE the other. For instance, I recently wrote about the experience of being always a beginner in prayer and I explained that it was the fact that God was eternal and living that mainly accounted for that experience. Actually, there is a significant paradox here that has to be clearly affirmed, namely: to the extent God is eternal, so too is God always new. To the extent God always was, always will be (i.e., is immutable), to the extent God never grows, matures, or deteriorates (i.e., is ungenerated and incorruptible)) and does NOT change, so too is God ALWAYS new. Or, to the extent God is genuinely new (qualitatively or kaine new, not simply novel or new in time), God is truly eternal (ungenerated, incorruptible, immutable). We speak routinely of the God who is eternal and living to express this paradox. We are not speaking of a static God --- for static would not be living OR eternal. Static refers more to the realm of death than to One who would be the ground and source of ever-renewed life. (As Thomas Aquinas noted, rest or cessation of movement implies imperfection.) ONLY the eternal is always and everywhere new. Only the eternal God is truly dynamic. Only BECAUSE God is unchanging and always fully being-in-act is God ALWAYS NEW. Conversely, only because God is always new (kaine) and dynamic is God eternal.

 Michael Dodds, OP notes while commenting on Thomas Aquinas' theology, [[ Far from implying, therefore, that God is somehow static or inert, immutability directly signifies that God. as subsistent esse [which is not the same as simply existing], is pure dynamic actuality. And while we may still rightly predicate motion of God in virtue of his immanent activity of knowing and willing and in virtue of his causative act of creation and providence, we best designate the dynamic actuality of God who exercises, or better, is this act when we speak not of a changing God, who would possess only the limited actuality of a creature, but of the immutable God who is the boundless actuality of subsistent esse itself.]] The Unchanging God of Love, Dodd, Michael OP, pp 159-160

Problems occur in theology when paradoxes are neglected or unduly softened.  Thomas Aquinas had an appreciation of paradox and spoke, among other things, of the movement of the immovable God or the motion of the motionless God. Unfortunately those that followed him often did not appreciate paradox and used the categories of his thought in ways which betrayed Thomas' own insights and work. Thus, some who argued for God's immutability in language which was similar to Thomas' ended up with a static God and no way to do justice to his dynamism. In contemporary theology we most often find theologians trying to do justice to God's dynamism in ways which deny his eternity and immutability. This enterprise is important in light not only of the Biblical witness and Christ Event, but in light of an evolutionary world where science and faith learn to relate to one another as complementary approaches to reality. On the other end of the spectrum we still find theologians trying to do justice to God's eternity and immutability by denying his dynamism, his living quality, his always-qualitative-newness; sometimes this is because they resist or deny the truth of an evolutionary world or a God who creates via evolution and sometimes it is because they have not truly perceived the depth and uniqueness of Aquinas' own thought.

To deny God's eternity in order to stress his newness or apparent changeability is to substitute a God who may be novel (neos) but one who is incapable of making all things qualitatively new (kaine). He is insufficiently transcendent or sovereign and there is no reason to believe we can really hope for anything ultimate from him. Such a "god" may indeed change, evolve, and be an exciting reality in the short term, but unless he is ALSO eternal and immutable that change may well include ceasing to be as it does for everything else. On the other hand, to deny God's eternal qualitative NEWNESS (kainotes) in order to assert his eternity and immutability gives us a "god" who cannot relate to an evolutionary creation much less ground its newness and summon it towards fullness. What has to be maintained is the ever-new God who grounds evolutionary reality and does so precisely from a position of transcendence and eternity. He summons an evolutionary world into existence from the absolute future of his own being. In other words, without an eternal and transcendent God, there would be no evolutionary world moving towards fulfillment in greater and greater levels of complexity and intelligibility.

None of this is merely an exercise in logic. We assert paradox because God has revealed himself to be essentially paradoxical. He is the eternal, unchanging God who is both always new and, in his transcendence and immanence, is the source of all genuine newness. He is the sovereign God of might and power who reveals himself perfectly in self-emptying (kenosis) and weakness (asthenia). He is the God of justice who asserts his rights over reality and makes all things right or just via mercy. He is the WHOLLY OTHER God who is revealed most clearly in turning a loving heart and human face to the world while he reveals himself in Christ as the exhaustively compassionate one, the incomprehensible God who is known only to the extent he is an essential part of our lives and knows (embraces and inspires) us intimately. No part of these paradoxes can be sacrificed without sacrificing God's very nature. Thus, answers to questions like those with which  we began this post demand formulations like: "I believe in a God who is both/and," and further, to sharpen the paradox, "I believe in a God who is one thing only because or to the extent he is the other."