Amipotence (Perhaps)
By Joshua G. Patterson
A radical affirmation of Amipotence would be one that sees the God of Amipotence as a symbol of the Unconditional worthy of what is going on in the name (of) “God.”
There comes a time when the proper theological response to unbecoming images of God, unworthy of the name (of) “God,” necessitate atheism. More simply put; some Gods deserve atheists.[1] Any good theologian worthy of the name will indeed be an atheist of sorts. Theology after all is the Queen of the sciences, and if it is to be taken as such, we must be very careful with our talk of God. In turn, when faced with depictions of God that are unworthy of the name (of) “God,” that are unworthy of Love, the proper response is to be atheism. Too much is at stake, flourishing and life as we know it are on the line. The “death of God” has occurred; rest in peace light perpetual. But what now? Are we then of all people most miserable and to be pitied? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Only time will tell.
In my humble opinion, Dr. Thomas Jay Oord is one such theologian worthy of the name. As one who holds Love as a matter of ultimate concern, I find deep resonance with the work of Oord. In fact, it is because of his work that for me Love is my Ultimate Concern. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, the work of Oord. Not only that, but I am lucky enough to call Oord a friend. As a friend, I wanted to have some fun with his concept of Amipotence, not seeking to reject it, but instead give it a radical affirmation. The astute reader has by now detected the voice and influence of another theologian. By design I have shown my hand rather quickly, and those already initiated can perhaps see where this is going. For the professional wrestling fans out there, this is the moment when the lights go down, the music hits, and with a loud pop from the crowd, out walks the challenger… John Caputo.
Oord’s book “The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence” can be read as both an obituary for the God of Omnipotence, and a birth certificate for the God of Amipotence. “The Omnipotent Supreme Being of Onto-Theology is dead,” proclaims Oord to which Caputo responds “Amen! Praise be to God, perhaps.” The trouble for Oord comes not in the obituary, but in the birth certificate. While the death of Omnipotence avoids all the metaphysical baggage often associated with divine power, the birth of the God of
Amipotence signals once again that the Unconditional has been conditioned, the Indeconstructible made deconstructible. The folly of God, the weakness of the unconditional call has not been taken all the way down, but instead has hit the wall of metaphysical affirmation. Instead of allowing the logic of the Unconditional to weaken theology into a theopoetics, Oord has resurrected a strong theology. In doing so, the charge of incredulity can be brought against God, undoing the “death of omnipotence” in the same way that the resurrection of God can sneak back in the principalities and powers of this world via a witty sleight of hand. At this point Caputo’s advice to Oord might be similar to that of his advice to Hegel; “You should have quit while you were ahead.”
Please don’t hear me wrong, Amipotence has a strong upside! Afterall I am confident that Caputo would want to affirm the non-coercive invitation to Love and relationship put forth by Oord. But a weak theology, a theology of perhaps, would want to caution us that Amipotence, while beautiful, still risks conditioning the Unconditional. For Caputo the folly of God, the folly of the Unconditional is that it does not exist. The unconditional calls, provokes, spooks, and haunts us. For this reason Caputo likes to talk not about Ontology, but Hauntology. If we name the Unconditional as Love, we must join Caputo in saying that Love does not exist, Love insists. Love calls, provokes, spooks, and haunts us. Is Love itself both fragile and ambiguous? Is Love itself not contingent, unstable, and uncertain? Love does not exist so much as it insists. Love is always something to come, something we will never fully be able to grasp or fully define. Love like God is the name of an event. The existence of Love is always something that is determined after the fact, after the event. In the same way that Caputo asks, “Will God have been?,” we can ask, “Will Love have been?.” There are no guarantees and no promises. Love after all is the weak power of the cross, the very folly of God.
It is here actually that I find a sense of deep resonance between these two thinkers… Love will always require relationship. For the God of Amipotence, creaturely cooperation is necessary for the will of God to be carried out. If creatures do not give in to the Divine lure, if creatures do not seek to actualize the will of the Divine, then the Kingdom never comes. In the same way, the Unconditional calls as a weak force with no strong ontological army to back it up. The question of the existence of God is up to us. Will God have been? Will Love have been? Only time will tell. Metaphysical qualms aside, this striking similarity opens up the possibility that the God of Amipotence could turn out to be a symbol worthy of the name (of) God. Whether or not we can trust God to always be loving is unknown; as I’ve said already Love is always determined after the fact. Perhaps though this is where faith begins? Faith does not begin in certainty, not even in the certainty of Love. Faith begins in the risk of responding to the elusive call of Love. Could it be that the God of Amipotence is the name of an Unconditional call, a weak force that while lacking coercive power, holds in its name transformative power through its very vulnerability? Could the symbol for the Unconditional be the God of Amipotence? Perhaps.
If I were to offer a radical affirmation of Amipotence like I set out to do, what might that look like? Amipotence viewed as a symbol of God, as a symbol of what is getting done in the name (of) “God” would never be about obedience to an almighty law giver, but instead a response to the Unconditional call of Love. One could affirm Amipotence as an event that disrupts all of our traditional categories and calls into question our strong theologies.
Amipotence like weak theology can help us see through the illusion that some supernatural being is coming to save us. Instead we are the ones who give existence and provide for the reality of the God of Amipotence. This is what Caputo refers to as the “Folly of God” and what a radical affirmation of Amipotence might call the “Folly of Amipotence.” A radical affirmation of Amipotence would be one that recognizes the call of Amipotence to be one that evokes possibility and doesn’t define clear boundaries. Amipotence, perhaps, would indeed qualify as a “poetics of the impossible” where the Unconditional call of Love endlessly exceeds our limited human comprehension. To radically affirm Amipotence we must move away from Ontology and look towards Axiology. Stop thinking of God as an agent out there, and instead think of God as an aspiration, as an invitation, as a prayer. We hope and we pray that God may-be, that God may prove to be that in which we live and move and have our being. But there is no guarantee. “That is what we hope and pray and desire, but that is a test God must pass, and God depends on us, so it is a test we both must pass.”[2]
If Caputo was forced to take up metaphysics, I feel it safe to say that the God of Amipotence would be his first choice. However, ultimately for Caputo, metaphysics is an exhibition in folly, it’s just not the folly of God, the weak call of the Unconditional. For Oord the God of Omnipotence has been put to death; his reign of terror is over, but the world is still a mess. Ultimately neither the call of the Unconditional in Caputo, nor the lure of the God of Amipotence in Oord gives us any certainty. The “death of God” has occurred; rest in peace light perpetual. But what now? Are we then of all people most miserable and to be pitied?
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the death of Jesus on the cross demonstrates, nobody is coming to save us. Will you give into the non-coercive lure towards the good and beautiful and true of the God of Amipotence? Will you hear the call of the Unconditional? Will you have made yourself worthy of what is going on in the name (of) “God” regardless if God exists or insists? Will God have been, will Love have been, Will the Kingdom have come when all things are said and done? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Only time will tell.
Bio: Joshua Patterson is the founder and host of the (Re)thinking Faith Podcast. He is an independent theologian with a love for Process-Relational thought, Radical Theology, and the Mystics. When not reading or podcasting, Josh enjoys playing ice hockey and spending time with his friends and family.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
Josh Patterson thoughtfully engages amipotence through the lens of the death of God, centering love as his ultimate concern. His main task is to explore how love and power appear in dialogue with both my work and that of Jack Caputo. He’s likely right that Caputo’s weak theology would raise concerns about amipotence. But I’d suggest amipotence theology also raises cautions about weak theology. Amipotence affirms Caputo’s critique of omnipotence while offering a constructive alternative. Such constructive proposals are less evident in Caputo’s death of God writings. I’m grateful to Josh Patterson for provoking deep reflection on these important issues.
For more on Oord’s view on what kind of God exists, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. Webb, Derek. n.d. Some Gods Deserve Atheists. Edited by Derek Webb. Spotify. Accessed August 27, 2024.
[2]. Caputo, John D. 2023. What to Believe? Columbia University Press.