Amipotence Overcomes Two Problems with Omnipotence
By John E. Culp
Amipotence lessens 1) the tension between God and evil and
2) the tendency to claim God’s omnipotence for personal interests.
An amipotent understanding of God as uncontrolling love[1], when applied to understanding God, lessens the tension between God and evil in an omnipotent understanding of God and challenges the tendency by humans to utilize the concept of God as omnipotent in order to establish control over others.
The general sense of divine omnipotence as control faces tension because of the existence of evil. If God is all-powerful and controlling, a good God would end evil. But evil and suffering exist as a type of evil. This raises questions about God’s control and being all-powerful. The common response to this tension has been to justify evil as a result of human and creaturely freedom rather than God’s action. Alvin Plantinga’s free-will defense, and John Hick’s soul-making theodicy rely upon a free-will justification of evil. Amipotence also understands evil as the result of human freedom. God’s uncontrolling love, according to amipotence, makes human freedom possible because God establishes order and randomness. But God’s establishing the conditions for human freedom is not the result of God’s self-limitation of being all-powerful and controlling. Instead, human freedom results from God’s self-giving, other-empowering nature. Human freedom results from God’s love rather than God not controlling all reality. God’s creation of order and randomness makes freedom and evil possible.
However, evil that results from order and randomness in human freedom means that God does not do evil, which lessens the tension between God and evil’s existence. Further, basing human freedom on God’s love rather than God’s control encourages human efforts to overcome evil and sufferings, empowering creation to resist evil. While efforts to explain how there can be evil if there is a God can be helpful, those efforts are limited if no action is taken in response to evils. Amipotence explains that divine and creaturely cooperation assist in overcoming evil as a result of God’s love making freedom possible.
A second issue with thinking of God as omnipotent is the tendency to think of God’s power as a resource to use to control the problems a person faces. If I obey God’s commands, then God will do what I want done. Oord describes this tendency as humans projecting onto God the desire for control they find among earthly leaders and then pointing to Biblical passages to support the claim that God picks political leaders and systems[2]. The concept of God as amipotent makes it clear that God’s power is the power of love that enables rather than the power of control. If God’s uncontrolling love has priority over God’s power, then as creatures in God’s image, we also should demonstrate love rather than power. Humans in the image of God and seeking to follow God’s direction will not seek to control but will seek to enable others. Our abilities to do and to create should be used for the care of others rather than for the control of others. Bringing aid to those who have suffered destruction from a hurricane is a way of caring for those who suffer rather than demonstrating superior abilities. The priority of divine love over power leads to an understanding of evil, which calls for human creativity and sacrifice to imitate God. Acting out of love creates hope in the presence of evil by working to bring good out of evil.
God as amipotent faces the challenge that an amipotent God who creates humans is not worthy of worship because God does not control human freedom and, therefore, is not omnipotent. Amipotence assumes a different meaning for “worthy of worship” than controlling power. For amipotence, God is worthy of worship because God’s essential nature is enabling love, not because of God’s controlling power. God, as amipotent, understands God as different from controlling power. The God of uncontrolling love motivates the worship of God as loving. An all-powerful, controlling God who could do evil makes such a God possibly threatening and unworthy of worship. Instead, God is worthy of worship because God demonstrates love rather than control, which is more than what humans naturally do.[3]
Further, God is worthy of worship because God works to bring good out of the evil that results from resistance to God’s purposes. While a controlling God might act in ways that bring harm, a loving God brings about good. God is worthy of worship because God is not working only to achieve the worship of God. Instead, God is working to involve the world in God’s purpose of enabling others. God’s nature of love is manifested in a variety of ways without divine control. God is present to and loves all creation by working alongside doctors, alternative healers, atoms, cells, and other aspects of creation.
Further, God’s creative action is continuous rather than just at the world’s origin and never as controlling what exists. Further, no power outside of God controls or limits God. Only God’s nature as love limits God’s action.[4]
God is also worthy of worship because God is almighty. God is almighty in the sense that God is 1) the source of might for all creation (all-mighty), 2) the one who exerts mighty influence upon everyone and everything (all-mighty), and 3) the one mightier than all others (all-mighty). This might always be expressed as noncoercive love.[5]
God is worthy of worship finally because God’s relentless love view guarantees that love wins in several ways: 1) God never stops loving us, 2) those who say yes to God’s love enjoy heavenly bliss in the afterlife, 3) God never stops inviting us to love, 4) habits of love shape us into loving people, and 5) we can hope that all creatures eventually cooperate with God.[6]
Additional development of the concept of amipotence can aid in understanding the occurrence of natural evil. Natural evil, such as destruction due to evolution, occurs separately from any human action. While human action in failing to build earthquake-resistant buildings results in suffering, an earthquake itself ordinarily does not happen because of what humans have done. Also, an earthquake due to human fracking would not be a natural evil. However, an earthquake that is not caused by human action is natural evil. Since earthquakes may occur due to the order and randomness that God established, it seems that God is responsible for natural evil. However, order is necessary for human actions to be significant. Control that stops evil actions makes freedom logically impossible. Knowing the order of events makes it possible for people to be responsible for their actions, making freedom significant. While the opposition between God and natural evil exists, the logical possibility of freedom requires order, so natural evil is not due to events that God could end without ending freedom.
The basis for hope, even in the face of what may be overwhelming natural destruction and evil, is God’s love that offers new possibilities in the face of evil and calls for creation to respond. God offers immediate hope based on possibilities that may not be apparent to created realities or even understood by those realities. Hope is not limited to some future consolation but in the call to work to actualize unanticipated possibilities. This is not just a theoretical or practical response but is part of an overall strategy aimed at strengthening and uplifting the victim by acknowledging rather than trivializing the evil, encouraging the victim to create or find their own meaning from their suffering, and showing how God sympathizes with suffering. This unites the theoretical and social elements in thinking about evil and does not separate the objective from the subjective experience of evil. God as love provides a way of thinking that encourages hope and brings meaning out of evil because God is involved and offers help in finding meaning when meaning seems impossible.
Bio: John E. Culp is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Azusa Pacific University. He earned his M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary, an MA from Butler University, and Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School. He is the author of the article “Panentheism” on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/) and various journal articles and book reviews. He collects driftwood.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
John Culp identifies two problems arising from Christian theologies embracing omnipotence. The first arises if we think a loving God is also omnipotent. This deity could and should prevent unnecessary suffering, a theme we both address in our writing. Second, humans project their political desire for control onto God. In contrast, the amipotent God avoids these two issues. And, as John says, this God is far more worthy of our worship. In future writings, I plan to explore the implications of amipotence he calls for, particularly its role as our true hope for overcoming evil with good through love’s persuasive power.
For more on Oord’s view of God and hope for an afterlife, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. Thomas Jay Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence (Grasmere, ID: SacraSage Press, 2023), 123.
[2]. Oord, Ibid., 88.
[3]. Thomas Jay Oord The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 164.
[4]. Thomas Jay Oord, God Can’t Q & A, (Grasmere, ID: SacraSage Press, 2019), 18.
[5]. Ibid., 200.
[6]. Ibid., 151-152.