I’d Do Anything for Love (But I Won’t Do That)

By Monica Alhbin

Does God spare one family but not the other?

Yes, I am a Meat Loaf fan, the American singer and actor known for his powerful, wide-ranging voice and theatrical live shows. He is one of the bestselling music artists in history and among many others, his Bat Out of Hell trilogy sold multitudes worldwide, and that’s where these lyrics come from.

So, what does that have to do with anything? I’m supposed to write about amipotence and why I support this concept. Well, thinking about how I should begin this essay, this song, “I’d do anything for love” by Meat Loaf came to mind, and I felt there was something there. I mean, isn’t that what God is? Someone who will do anything for love? In my opinion love is God’s essence, so whatever God does would have to be for love, by love, in love and through love and that’s how I see amipotence.

Anyway, I looked up the lyrics and the first two sentences of the first chorus says: And I would do anything for love, I’d run right into hell and back. I would do anything for love, I’ll never lie to you and that’s a fact”

That’s kind of how I see God, and it sounded pretty good to me as I was looking for ways to explain amipotence and why I believe in an amipotent God.

Thomas Jay Oord coined the word amipotence. He writes in his book The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence that the word combines the two Latin words ami and potens. The first means “love” and the second is the word for power or influence. So if Omnipotent means all powerful, amipotence would mean love powerful or love influential, meaning that the love of God, the divine, uncontrolling, unconditional love always comes first before power. The only influence God wants to have on us is love, because God can’t not love. The Divine always wants what’s best for us and works to promote that.

Ok, it feels like I’m rambling, let’s try some examples from my own life. In 2008 my Father-in-law passed away after less than a year of battling cancer. He had just turned 62. We did everything right. We prayed for healing. All our friends prayed for healing. We anointed him with oil. We expected a miracle. Then he died. I officiated the funeral and said all the right things, but I still think that was one of the most unfair things that could happen at that time. Why him? Why then? Some people felt like we did, but others offered the platitudes of him being in a better place and him being spared things that were to come. I didn’t care. I wanted him back.

On December 26th, 2004, there was an earthquake in the Indian Ocean and a tsunami (tidal waves) hit Malaysia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives with devastating force. Several of the large tourist resorts in Thailand, like Phuket and Khao Lak were seriously affected by the tsunami. Not least, Khao Lak where many foreign tourists were on holiday, including several thousand Swedes. Most of the Swedish tourists who died were in Khao Lak. Several, several thousands of people lost their lives that day and in the effects of this event.

A family we know who are members of the Methodist Church on the corner where we lived, and with whom we are friends, two adults and two teenagers, were in Thailand for a vacation at the time. When the news reached us, I immediately texted them and asked if they were all right. I got an answer pretty fast—“we are ok, we didn’t make it to Khao Lak as planned so we stayed further north a while longer.” And of course, their whole congregation and all their friends thanked God for sparing them. So did we.

When our kids were back in school after the Christmas-break we learned that one of the boys my daughters knew were missing, presumed dead, together with his parents. They had also spent Christmas in Thailand, and unfortunately in Khao Lak. After a while they found all three of them drowned, and I went with my girls to the funeral. Three coffins draped with Swedish flags in front. The church was crammed with kids from the school and their parents and flowers, stuffed animals, drawings and more, and it was one of the most beautiful funerals I have been to and one of the most horrible ones.

Now, where is the meaning in that? Why does God spare one family and not the other? There is no justice or fairness in that. No, that’s not the kind of God I want. At the time though, I didn’t know any other way to answer these questions than to draw the mystery card, as Thomas Jay Oord calls it. God’s ways are higher than ours. We just can’t understand God.

My third example is myself and my own health issues. I had anorexia when I was 18, fertility problems in my twenties, back and neck pains for most of my life, and during the past 15 years I’ve suffered two major burnouts and depressions, and several minor ones. My body keeps the score and I’m living with an unstable body, dizziness, IBS, aches and pains and fatigue. I’ve had to face my own vulnerability and weakness (which is hell for an Enneagram 8), and for many years I prayed to God for healing, several times a day and night (I still do sometimes). All my friends prayed. I tried bargaining with God. I threw away some CDs and books that were kind of “new age,” and I did everything “right,” but I wasn’t healed. I’ve had to find ways to live and function anyway. For the past ten years I have only worked part time and have 50% disability benefits.

So, did God want me to not be able to function 100%? I was doing God’s work for crying out loud! Did God heal someone else so there was nothing left for me? No, I can’t believe that, and I don’t wish to draw the mystery card.

The concept of an amipotent God tells me that God only wants good for me and even if I’m willing to be healed (like anytime, God), the cells in my body might not be able to receive that healing and that’s got nothing to do with whether God allows it or not. And the same was probably true for my father-in-law.

I am also sure that God did all God could do to save as many people as God could when the Tsunami hit, but I’m certain that God was close to every single one of them there all the time.

Let’s return to Meat Loaf and his song. The lyrics also say: “But I won’t do that.” So what would an amipotent God not do for love. Well, some of us have probably heard about God being all-loving but allowing evil for the greater good, and that is somehow God’s love. I say, hell no, and I think God would say: “I would not choose to heal one person of cancer and let someone else die for some greater good. I would not save some people from a raging tsunami and let others drown or die from diseases in the aftermath, for some greater good. I would not let anyone living with unhealth, physical, mental or other and not heal them if I could, for some greater good.”

But in all these cases and so many others across the world and through history, an all-loving, amipotent God, helps us, humans, to help and serve each other and it reaches beyond us humans, to other creatures and creation itself. Envisioning an amipotent God encourages us to live in relationship with God, each other and creation at large. It helps us to nurture creation and not abuse it, to see the divine in animals and flowers, to be fully connected to God, each other and the universe. The concept om amipotence helps us being open to what God’s best is for us and our fellow creatures and creation, and we can be God’s hands and feet, eyes, ears and mouth. Easy to say and hard to do, I know, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative, I think.

One more attempt to make this a little clearer. Again, reading Thomas Jay Oord’s book The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence, I understand it as even though God’s got the whole world in divine (metaphorical) hands, it’s not in an omnipotent way. He writes that: “The effectiveness of God’s immense power rests, in part, upon how creatures respond.” “As creatures cooperate with God’s empowering and inspiring casual activity, we see flourishing, liberation and abundant life. The poor are cared for, the captives set free.” “The amipotent God loves by empowering and inspiring, and part of the evidence for the strength of amipotence comes in positive creaturely responses.” And to summarize it he puts it this way: “God’s everlasting influence + God’s receptiveness + God’s omnipresence + Creaturely cooperation = God’s immense power. Amipotence is the maximal power of love.”

When I asked ChatGPT to say something supporting an all-loving God, it wrote: “In a world often characterized by chaos, suffering, and division, the idea of an all-loving God stands as a beacon of hope and transformation. This concept transcends religious boundaries, serving as a universal source of comfort, inspiration, and moral guidance. Embracing the notion of a God who is wholly loving can foster deeper connections among individuals, encourage compassion, and inspire positive change in our communities.” Now that sounds a lot like living the kin(g)dom of God, an amipotent God, who would do anything for love.

Bio: Monica Alhbin is a pastor in the Uniting Church in Sweden (UCS). She is a popular theologian and is since 2021 the host of G(ud)-Punkten Podcast, (https://monica6.podbean.com/) where she talks to different kinds of people about life, God, faith journeys, spirituality and more. She has guests from different parts of the world. Monica is currently working as a University Chaplain at Malmö University.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Monica Ahlbin’s essay connected deeply with me, particularly her reflections on life’s tragedies. Stories matter, and real-life experiences should challenge our perceptions of God. We should reject theologies that fail to fit life. Like Monica, I reject the idea of a God who selectively spares some but not others. A God who loves all but can’t control aligns better with reality. I appreciate her emphasis on God desiring our good, even when healing doesn’t come. Our bodies and environment hold agency, which can affect outcomes. There are things God cannot do, because true love, as Monica suggests, cannot force outcomes.

For more on Oord’s view of God and healing, see this article.

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