Amipotence: The Ghost Buster of Harmful Doctrines
By Michael Camp
Trust in an amipotent God frees us from frightful and damaging doctrines.
Traditional modern Christianity has many serious problems. The primary one is this: Christianity, the way most of us think of it (whether we are conservative, evangelical, progressive, or liberal), did not exist until about 200 years after Jesus.[1] Most versions and doctrines of post-ancient and modern Christianity do not align with the original Jesus movement.
Another conundrum is what philosophers call “the problem of evil.” The God of Christianity is supposedly both all-powerful and all loving. Yet, how can God be altogether loving if he does not prevent needless human pain even though he has the power to do so? How can an omnipotent loving God allow debilitating diseases, natural disasters, extreme poverty, sexual assaults, devastating wars, and a 20th century holocaust? Why must the innocent endure unnecessary misery if an almighty God truly loves them? Some theologians try to get God off the hook by blaming evil on humankind’s sinful nature, our freewill, and God’s higher purposes. But these do not hold up to careful scrutiny. At the end of the day, an omnipotent God could intervene to protect people from untold suffering, yet he does not.
The solution to this is twofold. One, get back to the original historical understanding of the earliest followers of Jesus, to Jesus himself, to the Jewish prophets, and to the original language of the scriptures. Second, is to deconstruct this notion that God is omnipotent. Thomas Jay Oord and other open and relational theologians have explained this second solution quite well. Their conclusion? God is not all powerful. God is not omnipotent. Yet neither is God impotent. Rather, God is all loving (amipotent), meaning God mainly influences humanity through the vehicle of love. God’s chief attribute is not power but rather love.
God doesn’t want to be worshiped and feared more than anything. He wants to love humanity more than exert power and demand loyalty. This kind of love requires certain things. It requires that others have power, not just God. It requires that it not force its own way. So, it doesn’t control others. It’s uncontrolling love. “God does not control creatures or circumstances, because love is inherently uncontrolling.” (127) In addition to this, per Jesus’ example found in the gospels, this inherently uncontrolling love is selfless, humble, merciful, and nonviolent. And, because God is not impotent, it is profoundly influential. It doesn’t use almighty power, coercion, or brute strength to persuade others. It primarily uses kindness, love, and compassionate correction. It can even use weakness to influence humanity. As the Apostle Paul said, God’s strength is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).
Applying Amipotence to History and Harmful Doctrines
Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s true that God is not an all-powerful, omnipotent God and that God is amipotent as described above. How could we apply that to the historical biblical record and certain dogmas like original depravity, retributive and frightful notions of God, penal substitutionary atonement, and the doctrine of hell? Let’s see how these dogmatic ghosts hold up in the face of an amipotent God.
God is not omnipotent in the Bible
If God is amipotent and not omnipotent, why are there so many passages in the scriptures that say God is almighty and all powerful? Well, actually, there aren’t. Examination reveals that there are numerous mistranslations of terms. There really isn’t any textual case for the belief that God is all powerful in the Bible. There are three words that are translated “almighty” in relation to God. The first is the Hebrew term, El Shaddai, typically translated ”God Almighty.” Yet, the oldest and most plausible meaning of Shaddai is “breast,” meaning the breasted God who nourishes and protects. It is not an all-powerful God. The second Hebrew word is sabaoth. It is sometimes translated “almighty.” Yet its meaning is “forces,” “armies,” “hosts,” “ranks,” “congregation,” or “council.” It would be better translated “lord of hosts” or “head of a council.” The third term is the Greek word, pantokrator, which first occurs in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It is best translated “all-holding” or “all-sustaining.” It does not mean “almighty.”
Thomas Jay Oord declares that even in the New Testament, “…New Testament writers…do not use words that mean ‘omnipotent,’ ‘almighty,’ or ‘all-powerful.’” (25) Jesus never called God omnipotent. God is described as powerful in the scriptures, but never all-powerful. God alone can do much, but he can’t singlehandedly do it all. If God is not called omnipotent in the Bible or in Jesus’ teachings, then the notion of omnipotence is a misguided teaching that crept into Christianity in the centuries after Jesus.
Amipotence requires uncontrolling love in the garden and beyond
Going back to the original ideas found in the first century Jesus movement, original sin was not a state of sinful depravity inherited through Adam. The notion of original depravity for all humankind—that all people are born incapable of being good and require a religious conversion to be saved—first found its voice through Augustine in the 4th century, not with Genesis, Jesus, or Paul. Moreover, if God is amipotent, if uncontrolling love is his chief attribute, then original depravity can’t be true. How can God’s inherent nature be uncontrolling and God create humankind to inherit a depraved sinful nature they have no control over? If original depravity is true, then God ordains humans to lack goodness and be deserving of hell right from the start.
But if God is not all-powerful and his chief attribute is loving others without controlling them, then whatever sin or immaturity that humankind has is not from God imposing it. It’s simply a choice humans make. Therefore, God’s amipotence reinforces the original notion of human creation, that God made humankind in the image of God and that image is good. Humankind has original innocence albeit in an immature state. God does not bound us to be depraved but naturally gives us our own choice and power to act good or not.
Amipotence demands nonviolent love over retribution
In the traditional view of God, God is the Lord Almighty of all who rewards obedience and punishes sin and rebellion. He uses his own power or human governments to carry the punishment out. This punishment is retributive. In the here and now, it takes the form of personal devastation, disease, banishment, fines, imprisonment, and sometimes the death penalty. Yet, if Jesus’ compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and nonviolence is the true divine pattern and God is uncontrolling and doesn’t use power or sickness or violence to punish people, then these retributive devices can’t be from God. If they occur, they are from the natural consequences of one’s actions in the culture in which one lives. Or they are merely the consequences of living in a world full of natural risks. Uncontrolling love does not seek retribution because the act of retribution is the ultimate control of another. Uncontrolling love seeks to influence others to change. It doesn’t manipulate, restrain, force, threaten, punish, inflict pain on, torture, or execute another.
Nonviolent love requires no bloody sacrifice to appease a demanding God
The use of violence by someone against another is a mechanism of control. But if an amipotent God necessitates an end to retribution and violence, then how can Jesus’ violent death be an appeasement to God? Penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is the belief that God requires punishment for sin and the only way to forgo that punishment is for a sinless innocent victim (Jesus) to be tortured and murdered on a Roman cross in place of the guilty. Thereby Jesus takes on the punishment that humanity deserves. What’s more, only if one accepts this transaction is one forgiven and thereby saved from God’s wrath and eternal damnation. But this makes God out to be a violent deity who demands a brutal blood sacrifice before he can forgive. Forgiveness is contingent on a vicious act of violence orchestrated by God himself and acceptance of that vicious act by the sinner. This is not divine nonviolent love but just the opposite. It doesn’t condemn violence, it endorses it. Therefore, it can’t be the meaning of the cross.
An amipotent God, by nature, cannot orchestrate a violent sacrifice of an innocent victim. Uncontrolling love cannot impose a violent solution to the problem of sin. Uncontrolling love, which is unconditional, works in the transformational realm to bring redemption not in the legal realm where a proscribed penalty is instituted. It desires mercy, not sacrifice, let alone an excruciating sacrifice. Unconditional love may accept its own persecution and still forgive its perpetrators, but it can’t require a violent act be done for forgiveness to take place. Moreover, the history of the Jesus movement confirms this. The early “church” did not teach PSA. It wasn’t first described until the 11th century through Anselm and not fully developed until the 16th century through Calvin.
Uncontrolling love demands universal restoration
The ultimate act of control is to restrain a person for eternity. To take away their free will and freedom and lock them up in an eternal dungeon. This is essentially what hell is. It’s a place an unrepentant sinner (who has not accepted the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus) goes upon death that forever closes the door to repentance and forgiveness. Yet uncontrolling love cannot restrain a person forever. It must leave the door to repentance and forgiveness open. It must always seek to influence the sinner or wrongdoer to change and be restored. It pursues restorative justice rather than retributive eternal punishment.
An amipotent God cannot envision let alone create a place of eternal conscious torment nor one of annihilation. Uncontrolling and unconditional love demands finding, influencing, and restoring the lost. Universal restoration was also the original view of Jesus and his first century movement and arguably the predominant view of the movement’s first 500 years. An amipotent God fits like a glove into the notion of universal salvation of the lost.
The amipotence of God vaporizes a host of harmful theologies
Amipotence is by far a morally superior view of both the nature and character of God. It is a harmful doctrines ghostbuster. It not only solves the problem of evil but sets us free from destructive and fearful doctrines that were never part of the ancient “church.” These include not only the ones cited above, but others like the inerrancy of the Bible and how evangelicals view LGBTQ issues. If God is not all-powerful, and doesn’t control humanity, it makes sense that he could not make the Bible inerrant, ensure the right canon of scripture, and orchestrate accurate translations. He can influence people to record things about his nature but cannot guarantee everything would be infallible. In the same vein, a God who doesn’t singlehandedly have all power couldn’t create a human race that has perfect design, immunity from illness, and flawless gender boundaries. He couldn’t prevent or cure all diseases. Neither could he change a gay individual into a heterosexual, nor need to. He would have limits on his power. But not limits on his love.
Bio: Michael Camp is an author, podcaster, faith transition coach, and former evangelical missionary to Africa. He earned his M.S from Eastern University. Camp is the author of Breaking Bad Faith, Craft Brewed Jesus, and Confessions of a Bible Thumper. He tends The Spiritual Brewpub (www.spiritualbrewpub.com) and loves hiking, golfing, and drinking craft beer in the Pacific Northwest.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
I loved how Michael Camp identified omnipotence as the root of many problems in Christian theology. He effectively highlights what is at stake by addressing the issue biblically and beyond. He also explores amipotence’s implications for ethics, universal restoration, and more. I’m thrilled he finds amipotence far more helpful than traditional views of divine power. He rightly concludes that any limits on God must come by our rethinking and, therefore, limiting divine power not God’s love. Michael’s insights reinforce the idea that divine power should be understood through the lens of divine love, shaping a more compassionate and relational theological perspective.
For more on Oord’s view of God’s power as limited, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. Erin Vearncombe et al, After Jesus Before Christianity (New York: HarperCollins 2021).