***To me this [misunderstandings] suggests that we are missing the true area of our differences. THAT, to me, is the interesting area of question. There is SO much misunderstanding.***
I guess I don’t find that so unexpected. Different traditions use different terminology which leads to confusion. Writers don’t show their readers charity in their misunderstandings. Readers don’t show writers charity in their terminology. Writers don’t make an effort to use terminology that translates to a different tradition. Ground motives are left unsaid. Examples and idioms are used that are contextually situated. Concepts are left unpacked without examples. There are myriad variables that lead to misunderstanding. This has always happened. Personally I’m not so interested in these sociological and psychological variables but try to understand them as best i can.
That being said let me respond, in charity, to some of your statements.
As for the whipsaw effect with Transcendence and Immanence the point I’m trying to make is one of starting point. The initial point was that revelation is possible based upon Biblical anthropology. For those who hold to utter transcendence, say like the Greeks and Barth, the only way to know God is through experience. OTOH, someone like Aquinas will start with reason of sense expierence and try to rationalize transcendence. In the first case God is unknowable except by mystical experience and the second case God is knowable through reason based on sense expierence. Instead of starting within ourselves to know God we should always start with the transcendence that became immanent, Christ, through the prophets and apostles as recorded in scripture to filter all facts.
As for the rest of your post it seems your moving toward panentheism or as Barth described it, “God is being in becoming”.
I'd bet that my thinking tends to err in a panentheistic direction (as a, I say hopefully, redeemed pantheistic attitude), to the extent that my (I do not like this term) "spirituality" (new project, find a better word for that) has come from intense engagement with "nature". The first two times God snuck up on me and hit me on the head were when I was outdoors, once gazing at a lane of Laurels in bloom and once bow-hunting bunnies. AND pre-Xtian influences were Plato and Plotinus.
BUT I think you're giving Aquinas a bad rap, maybe, in this way: I think he thinks we can know that there is a God by reason, but we can't know God or know who he is by reason. (Since I'll be at church later on I'll try to tackle the most Thomistic of the guys and ask him if that's a fair glib summary.)
(BTW: despite bad temper, I am actually very patient and willing to let things take their course. What may strike folks as me being surprised by the unexpected may be me just saying,"At last, here we are!" I know that some things just take time and that if you take the top off the kettle it'll just take that much longer to come to a boil, while if you sit back, sooner or later - Sholem aleikem! - it's boiling!)
And for another inflicting of my self on the conversation, I DO like "process". My favorite part of bridge is the bidding - because of the requirement that two people communicate and plan and reach an agreement in a highly artificial and stylized language.