Why It Matters that Love is First

By Sarah Heaner Lancaster

Amipotence offers to solve the traditional problem of evil using an idea of a genuinely Christian God.

Thomas Jay Oord’s proposal to think of God as amipotent rather than omnipotent establishes a genuinely different option in the longstanding debate about the problem of evil. I will aim in this brief essay to outline how Oord’s option offers a new alternative, not only to longstanding classical theological options but also to a different possible relational theology solution.

Oord’s chapter 3 in The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence focuses on the problem of evil. It is Oord’s view that the problem of evil should reveal the problems of omnipotence so clearly that we should be ready to embrace a new way of thinking about God’s power. Historically though, theologians as well as ordinary believers have been reluctant to give up an all-powerful God. The problem of evil can be expressed as a question in this way: If God is all-powerful and God is all-good, then why does evil exist? In other words, if God is good and has all the power to do whatever God wants, then why would God create a world where evil is present?

There have been various ways of resolving this question that show which tensions individuals are willing to live with in order to avoid giving up on omnipotence. Some deny that evil is really evil: bad things are not so bad because they happen for a reason. For instance, the difficulties we face are really not evil but rather tests or opportunities for growth. This approach may work well for everyday setbacks, but large scale evil such as genocide does not seem justified for personal growth. Others may wonder about the goodness of God. Does God have a “shadow side?” Does evil come from God because God’s goodness is not most important? Maybe we worship God because of God’s power rather than because of God’s goodness.

The above two options are present in various forms, but the one Oord tackles most openly because it is the most prevalent and influential is the attempt to explain that God has all power, but God distributes that power so that creatures (especially human creatures) may act freely and causally in the world. God shares God’s own power so that the creatures may exercise some power. God self-limits in some way because the value of creaturely (especially human creatures) decision-making and activity is so high that God is willing to take the risk that creatures will not use their power well. The approach is often known as the “free will” defense to highlight that God allows us to make free choices that can lead to evil events.

As it is usually expressed, the free will option retains the idea that because God is all-powerful and so retains control, God could override creaturely power if God wanted to, but God does not do so for God’s own reasons. God wants humans to exercise free will so God accepts and lets us live with the consequences of human mistakes and failures. God does not cause, but God allows evil.

Like the first option mentioned above, this option may work better for smaller consequences than for larger ones (for instance genocide or destroying the habitability of the planet). For this reason, Oord reminds us (for instance in The Uncontrolling Love of God and God Can’t) there are events where the cost is so high, it is hard to see how a loving God could justify the harm done. These events show the problem in high relief.

Some have objected to this defense of God by pointing out that if God shares power but retains the possibility of overpowering the creature’s use of that power, then God’s refusal to prevent the evil that God could prevent makes God ultimately responsible for the consequences that follow from the way the creature uses that power. Some theologians have sought a resolution to the problem of evil using relational metaphysics. In the metaphysics of process philosophy, all actual entities have some measure of power and freedom. God does not “share” this power, rather it is simply given with existence. Schubert M. Ogden makes use of this metaphysical idea to explain that “omnipotent” does not mean having all the power there is, but rather having all the power any single individual could have given that other individuals also have some measure of power. This means that God’s power is immense but does not include overpowering the creatures. God then is not “allowing” evil to happen. There is genuine risk in God’s creation that the creature will use their power poorly, and God cannot unilaterally prevent or override the consequences.

Ogden has been faulted for promoting an idea of God that is not sufficiently “Christian.” That is, if he is not talking about the all-powerful God, then he is not talking about the Christian God at all. Oord’s proposal for amipotence strengthens the relational alternative to the problem of evil on precisely this point. He recognizes that the Christian God is a God of love, so he starts with this conviction. God’s very nature is love. In fact it is the defining attribute of all God’s attributes. As Oord says, love comes “first.” All God’s attributes, including power, must be understood in light of this defining attribute. Loving power is not controlling, nor is it interfering. So the reason God does not have all power to control the creatures is not simply explained by a metaphysical theory. Rather, it follows from the deepest conviction Christians have about God.

Instead of building his solution to the problem of evil on a metaphysical description of how the world operates, Oord builds it on the way God is. If the Christian God is love, then how would this God of love exercise power in relation to the creatures? God’s self-limitation is not a choice that could be revoked. Rather, it is in the very nature of God for the creatures to have freedom. If the language of self-limitation may be used, it means God is limited by the kind of self that God is.

Bio: Sarah Heaner Lancaster is Werner Professor of Theology at Methodist Theological School in Ohio. She is the author of The Pursuit of Happiness: Blessing and Fulfillment in Christian Faith and other books.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Sarah Heaner Lancaster does a masterful job reviewing and reporting on my views of God’s power. She does so with the problem of evil in mind. I especially appreciate her use of Schubert Ogden as a dialogue partner. Both Ogden and I reject the notion that God permits evil God could stop. Sarah also rightly observes that my proposal builds on God’s love rather than metaphysical abstractions. I believe God’s limitation is not a voluntary choice or imposed law. Instead, the inability to control others derives from God’s loving nature, and it reveals the kind of deity God is: persistently relational, compassionate, and creative.

For more on Oord’s view of God as neither externally nor voluntarily limited, see this article.

* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.