Did the Spiritual but Not Religious Leave Because of Omnipotence?
By Linda Mercadante
Oord’s argument does not help explain why mainstreamers are leaving the church. It may help explain the growing reality of exvangelicals.
Did you ever wonder what motivates an author to take on a particular topic with unusually strong passion and confidence? In the case of Thomas Oord’s The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, I couldn’t help speculating. Perhaps Oord has had many students with strong views of divine omnipotence that have caused them not just theological, but emotional problems. Or maybe Oord always found omnipotence essentially “bad theology,” preventing believers from understanding the all-loving relationality of God. On the other hand, perhaps he is suggesting that this doctrine in particular that has caused many to depart or never even consider Christianity. Without complete certainty, it seems to me Oord may primarily be battling a conservative agenda which relies on the primacy of divine omnipotence which, as Oord skillfully explains, has caused both theological, practical, and even societal problems.
However, for me as a progressive theologian, this is not my battle. Instead, I am more concerned with the theological reasons behind rampant church decline and why growing numbers are proud to claim they are “spiritual but not religious” (including former clergy, as my research shows.)[1] Although Oord only mentions a few times that the doctrine of omnipotence may be an obstacle to belief,[2] he may have a point. I have interviewed hundreds of SBNRs, some who have left the church and others who would not even consider it. Quotes such as “I don’t believe there is this man with a big beard who is going to strike me down if I don’t do things right” or “My Sunday school version has always been… the Wizard of Oz running the show” [3] indicate that stereotypical ideas of divine omnipotence may indeed have played a part in their rejection of Christianity.
Yet for others who nevertheless still reject the church, omnipotence is not the main issue. One woman said as a child “I kind of really just pictured Him as a man just sitting up there, just making things happen… (I) never really put much thought into it” so she simply accepted it without a problem. [4] Another said her image of God “was consistent with my understanding of [my] father…very loving, nurturing, kind to us.”[5] Nevertheless, both left their childhood church. In fact, the SBNRs I interview are often not theist, instead believing more in a “universal energy source.” Thus, a more relational idea of God, as Oord proposes, would probably not motivate them to reconsider Christianity.
Often these SBNRs express things that Oord would likely reject, such as the claim that they are God, that any transcendent force is simply an energy coming to consciousness through their own spiritual growth, that material reality is an illusion, that evil is a mistaken impression, and many other ideas often identified with “New Age.” While some of Oord’s reconstructions, such as God expressed in the natural world,[6] would resonate with SBNRs, it would probably make more sense to Christians who are drawn to an SBNR perspective. However, in the end the growing SBNR movement is not primarily inspired by bad theology. It is true that stereotypical ideas of Christian thought often permeate their narratives and are sometimes used as justification for being non-religious. Yet in the end, the growing SBNR movement instead demonstrates an overall change in authority, from “out there” to “in here.”
As for the many former clergy I have interviewed, they have come up with a less powerful and more “process” idea of the Godhead, sometimes also using Tillich’s “ground of being” concept. One clergy woman was similar to others in thinking of God as more like “the Universe,” saying: “It is a power beyond. It has some sort of power but not the kind we ascribe to God.”[7] Instead, the former clergy’s primary quarrel is with ecclesiology, i.e., how the church on all levels has betrayed their trust, failed to live out the Gospel, and allowed cabals to oust them from a life-commitment they made to serve God and others. They don’t blame God for their often-traumatic oustings and did not expect God to save them from the sins of the church.
In addition, in my 32 years of seminary teaching and ministry, I have rarely encountered any believer who deeply relies on God’s omnipotence. Instead I note that most take a more rounded view of sin, human nature, and the reality of evil. While this may reflect my longer experience in the mainstream church and relatively shorter time among evangelicals, the closest I could find to a belief in divine omnipotence is the many who have hope that God will “make it come out all right in the end.” This is not the strong view of omnipotence that Oord is disputing.
I find many of Oord’s arguments useful and cogent, especially when put into the context I imagine he is addressing. In addition, he may be offering some modifications or reconstructions of pivotal Christian theology that might persuade some people to stay within the Christian fold rather than find a resonance in the SBNR ideology. Still, I wonder why he starts with the “omnis” even while rejecting one of them. Instead, as a Christian theologian I would rely primarily on the doctrine of the Trinity and biblical views of the Incarnation as the starting place when talking about God. The fact that love has existed within the Trinity eternally does not hamper the idea that this love is so great it desires to overflow, just as a couple in love are not required to have a child, but might very much want to share their deep love with another. In addition, there are important theological reasons for retaining ideas about God’s aseity and creation ex nihilo, rather than starting with—or challenging — the “omnis.”
So, while The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence was an engaging read, ably stated and defended, it is somewhat unclear as to motivation, goals, and consequences.
Bio: Linda Mercadante, Ph.D., is Distinguished Research Professor Emerita at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, serving as Professor of Theology for 32 years, and an ordained PCUSA minister. Specializing in belief and culture, she is author of the award-winning book, Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but not Religious (Oxford University Press), is founder of HealthyBeliefs.org and lectures internationally.
OORD’S RESPONSE
Linda Mercadante says that belief in omnipotence does not explain why many are leaving Christianity. I admit to having no massive data survey upon which I make my claim. The surveys on this to which I appeal come from small studies I report in the book I wrote with Tripp Fuller, God after Deconstruction. When Linda appeals to her 32 years of seminary teaching and ministry, she mentions that some of her students have been troubled by the reality of evil. Her experience matches the many letters and notes I have received from people who reject Christianity because of the problem of evil. My argument is that omnipotence is the culprit. Perhaps additional surveys might demonstrate if I’ve overstated my case.
For more on Oord’s view of reasons people deconstruct, see this link.
[1]. Linda Mercadante, Open Theology, “Clergy Becoming Spiritual but not Religious,” June 20, 2024, pp.1-11, https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2024-0007
[2]. Thomas Jay Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, pp.95, 145.
[3]. Linda Mercadante Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but not Religious (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p.98.
[4]. Mercadante, Belief without Borders, p.98.
[5]. Mercadante, Belief without Borders, p.97.
[6]. Oord, The Death of Omnipotence, p. 148.
[7]. Mercadante, “Clergy Becoming Spiritual but not Religious,” p.7.