God Can’t Be All-Powerful and All-Loving!

By Mike Edwards

Believing in an all-loving rather than all-powerful God can be more relationally satisfying.

Thomas Oord eloquently explains why an all-loving God is much more satisfying in his. ne must wonder if God is all-powerful, why doesn’t God prevent pointless pain and evil? God’s supposed lack of intervention in suffering may be the main reason why many reject God. Maybe there is a better explanation than typically suggested how God and evil co-exist. In his ground-breaking book, Oord explains why omnipotence should be rejected, and he offers a replacement – amipotence (uncontrolling love). I would suggest an all-loving, uncontrolling God is the only God worth believing in.

God can’t control your suffering logically.

How can God be all-powerful and humans have some power or control? The Bible claims love does not insist on its own way (I Cor 13:5). A loving spiritual or human parent must limit their supposed total power. Keep in mind that even if God stopped all bullets, that doesn’t change the gun holder. God can’t solve human selfishness. It is worth considering that God can’t be all-powerful or controlling and be true to God’s nature. Evil and suffering in the world may be because God cannot intervene single-handedly without being controlling. God can’t intervene in suffering without human help.

Freedom is a good thing. In God’s defense, it is not logically possible for God to create freedom unless there is the possibility of love or hate. Human parents hope their children freely reciprocate their love than being forced. Without freedom we could accuse God of not creating the very best world where only true, authentic relationships can develop. Freedom also allows humans to develop qualities of moral character that cannot be created initially. Freedom though cannot guarantee a pain free universe.

God can’t control your suffering morally.

Freedom can explain why much of evil exist, but why doesn’t God intervene more often if all-powerful? We must come up with a better explanation that God simply allows – thus controls – evils but doesn’t cause evils. Humans don’t get a free pass if they can stop evil but don’t. A God who can prevent evil but doesn’t is counter-intuitive to love. No loving parent or God sits idly by when they could prevent tragedies such as rape or murder. We must stop saying all evil eventually leads to good as if some grand plan by God! Ask sexual abuse victims or family members of murdered victims. Physical abuse often leads to abuse in future generations. We are left to believe God doesn’t care, God is punishing us, or God has abandoned us and left us clueless what the grand plan is.

Don’t miracles prove God is all-powerful despite freedom?

Lots of prayers asking for healing aren’t answered. Is God’s love infrequent or arbitrary? Do miracles not happen because some people are less sinful or beg better at the feet of an arbitrary God? Oord has written in his many books that a better explanation for healings is that various biological and environmental factors are involved such as cells and organs. If God doesn’t deny human freedom, it may not be a stretch to say God has to account for natural freedom as well. Perhaps miracles can happen when God’s love aligns with countless factors known and not known. God cannot intervene singlehandedly, but God surely intervenes whenever circumstances will allow.

Doesn’t the Bible claim God is all-powerful?

I have written often how our view of the Bible may be the greatest reason for misunderstanding God. It is often assumed Jesus is speaking directly to you when recorded speaking to an audience in the Bible! Jesus’ words don’t always apply to every situation in one’s life 2000 years later. Jesus often used hyperbole for emphasis without stating exceptions: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment”(Mt 5:22).

Was Jesus subjecting himself to judgment when calling out religious hypocrites—“you blind fools” (Mt 23:17)? Sounds angry to me! Discern if your angry is what Jesus is addressing. The Bible isn’t a question-and-answer Book. The Bible is valuable because it suggests handling certain circumstances from a spiritual than human perspective. It challenges us to a life of love and treating others like we want to be treated!

The Bible can be used to defend almost any point of view. Oord covers in his book biblical passages that can defend or oppose believing God is all-powerful. Ancient literature subject to interpretation cannot be the definitive word on truth. Besides, even if all agreed that the Bible correctly interpreted confirms God is all-powerful, we cannot prove that the writers always portrayed God accurately. Any biblical truth claimed must also agree with natural truth such as sexual abuse is evil or that love cannot be controlling. We must always pursue truth with an open mind.

The truth is biblical scholars who have a deep respect for Scriptures don’t agree what the Bible says about gays, women, hell, and other moral issues. Gays are often condemned, and women’s leadership roles are limited, despite their gifts, in God’s name. It is suggested a fiery torturous afterlife awaits infidels. Is this how a loving God would love? A Creator surely loves the way creatures intuitively think they ought to love. Please consider that your interpretation isn’t necessarily biblical or more moral.

How can we then know God?

Self-evident rights aren’t hidden in the Bible or any Book. Self-evident rights may be found in a Book or natural law, as we all have an inborn sense of good and evil. Most criminals don’t defend their murders or thefts; instead, they deny committing such crimes. No reasonable human being doesn’t respect the universal compulsion to treat others like we want to be treated. Who but the guilty don’t agree sexual abuse or murder is evil. Belief or lack of belief in God is no excuse for chaos. Any such belief is personal. We must have open discussions in the religious or political arena on matters such as women roles in the church or immigration or climate policies. Personal beliefs about God can be shared in the public arena without imposing or assuming we all agree what biblical truths or laws are for the greatest good.

What if God isn’t all powerful though?

Concerns are raised that God can’t guarantee promises if not all-powerful. How can God promise a new world supposedly sometime in the future where there will be no evil. Is God really coming again (rapture/tribulation/Armageddon) to destroy this world as we know it and set up God’s reign? Not all scholar agree that the end times mentioned in the Bible refer to the future as opposed to a new age beginning in the first century, thus having been fulfilled. Why then did Jesus says: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass way until all these things have happened” (Mt. 24:34).

Can God guarantee there will be no sin in heaven if humans are still free? If love requires freedom, it seems this would be true here on earth and life after death. Perhaps character developed on earth may eventually lead to seeing no good reasons for doing bad in heaven, which surely is the highest form of freedom. If sin is possible in heaven because of the presence of freedom, we can at least hope God’s presence will have a greater impact than earthly, human authority to dissuade selfishness. We thrive more under certain types of parental love and leadership because of their qualities such as integrity and understanding.

Uncertainty can be a good thing.

We can’t claim “the Bible says so.” Certainty rather than uncertainty comforts individuals psychologically. One may believe the seemingly certain narrative because unknowing can create anxiety. When only one side is presented, control and power grow intentionally or unintentionally. It should be intuitive denying diverse opinions is unloving and controlling. Couples who act as if they are always right and their partner is wrong are headed toward divorce. Having good intentions by believing you are right for the whole doesn’t matter when certainty isn’t universal. God-followers and religious leaders seem hell-bent in telling people what they must believe about God according to their understanding and interpretation of the Bible. Politicians seem hell-bent on claiming certainty regarding policies such as climate change and immigration, though there are arguments on both sides. Imagine a world if all encouraged civil discussions to better discern together the greatest good for all.

The possibility of a less powerful, controlling God!

In our suffering we don’t have to feel God doesn’t care or that God could do something and doesn’t. God knows and empathizes with us in our suffering. God obviously grieves due to all the evil in the world. God suffered when Jesus was crucified. God suggested through Jesus’ example and words what kind of life lived by all here on earth can make for a much grander world. God doesn’t derive pleasure by seeing us in pain but the unfortunate truth in a free world is suffering enables me to better help and influence others that our prosperous times don’t. Martin Luther King’s suffering moved the scales from the eyes of many how they tolerated bigotry. Jesus’ miracles turn heads, but Jesus’ suffering changed the hearts of billions of followers.

What are necessary paths to pursing truth about God’s love?

There are truths which almost have universal agreement. Do you know one person who denies adultery is wrong except the betrayer?

•     Shouldn’t Christian leaders quit always claiming their biblical interpretation is correct and at least acknowledge literature requires interpretation “according to their understanding?”

•     Shouldn’t we examine all Books about religion to discern what seems the most universally true? What are Christians afraid of if they have the truth?

•     Shouldn’t we listen to everyone’s opinion and seek to discern together what is the most loving action according to the circumstances?

•     Shouldn’t we first stop claiming our views are morally superior to those we disagree with unless we speak of universally accepted moral truths

•     Shouldn’t we begin conversations by looking for areas we agree?

•     Shouldn’t we discuss differences by defending our reasoning, respecting the opinions of others, and commit to growing in understanding?

•     Shouldn’t we stop labeling those who disagree with our biblical interpretations as heretics?

•     Shouldn’t we stop calling those who disagree with our political views as conspiracists?

Bio: Mike Edwards has retired from the Counseling profession. Mike blogs at “What God May Really Be Like” and “Done With Religion Not God. He asks questions in hopes one may consider any beliefs about God that discourage pursuing God and spirituality. Mike loves to play tennis and spend time with his family.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Mike Edwards addresses the core issue by arguing that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. If “all-powerful” means creatures lack freedom, this contradicts our experience in a free universe. After all, an omnipotent God would be responsible for allowing unnecessary suffering. The problem of evil leads many to doubt God’s perfect love. Claims that miracles prove omnipotence ignore that reality is made of entities with genuine freedom. In this powerful essay, Mike tackles the questions I often hear when defending amipotence. His work is a compelling call to rethink omnipotence in light of love, freedom, and our lived experience.

For more on Oord’s view of evil and deconstructing theology, see this article.

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