Like God

By Eleanor O’Donnell

Amipotence is as good for society as it is for religion.

God is the greatest source of power in the universe. Monotheistic religions like Christianity affirm this to be the case. Cultures and societies influenced by monotheisms are imbued with their long-established understanding of the power of God. None of us escape religious and cultural influences on our sense of power and personal agency. The exercise of power in our relationships, the way we operate with others individually and collectively, is profoundly connected to how God is understood. In modeling ourselves on our societal notions of God, we each live out a cultural imprint. This imprint is accentuated for those who take the extra step of seeking to be like God from a position of faith.

For Christians, being like God is grounded in the idea represented in Genesis 1:26, that humanity is made in the image of God. This takes the modeling of the self on God from a cultural likelihood to a religious obligation. In this context, amipotence, rather than omnipotence, as the key explanation of God’s power becomes incredibly important. For, if we suppose God to be in omnipotent control of all things, we are then permitted to follow the divine example and use our power to direct and control others. In contrast, if we understand God to be amipotent, we must instead use our power as loving influence rather than top-down control.

There are a range of theological problems with the idea of an omnipotent God. Foremost is the problem of evil, which causes many to recognize that a God who genuinely loves cannot be in total control. Then there is the realization that the notion of omnipotence is not founded in the bible and that it requires many more philosophical qualifications than is reasonable for any sound concept. Such evidence of the effective death of omnipotence makes rethinking God’s exercise of power a necessity for those who seek a rational faith. Especially a rational faith that supports societal wellbeing. In fact, the birth of amipotence provides an invitation to consider how and why the concept of omnipotence is so problematic for social relationships.

To pursue the likeness of God in our own lives and relationships is humanly normal, both culturally and religiously. It stands to reason that, if the God we emulate is understood to be omnipotent, exercising the kind of power that directs and controls everything that happens, then human domination and control of others is validated. Furthermore, hierarchical systems of governance and management gain traction. Co-operative systems are seen as weak or subversive, and the agency of certain individuals and groups is increasingly dependent on those who are at the top of the power grid. The individuals and groups most affected by societal power structures modeled on the concept of an omnipotent God are women, children, the LGBTQ+ community, and the racially and linguistically diverse.

A recent report into domestic and family violence commissioned by the Anglican Church of Australia highlights a significant issue. Australia has a major problem with intimate partner violence (IPV). Such violence is essentially an abuse of power. On average, in Australia, one woman each week is murdered by her current or former intimate partner. Research shows that one in three Australian women from fifteen years of age report experiences of physical or sexual violence. Connected to this is a growing awareness of how much coercive control of women (nearly always by men) contributes to an ongoing cycle of violence in relationships.

Very tellingly for the Anglican Church of Australia, the report challenged the expectation that domestic abuse is less common in church communities. The National Anglican Family Violence Project (NAFVP) Prevalence Study in fact found that Australian Anglicans experience domestic violence in similar or higher proportions than the broader community. The news was worse for women than for men. Anglican women were much more likely to have experienced IPV than women in the wider community (52% to 44%), whereas Anglican men barely differed from men in the broader community (31% to 33%). A key factor noted in cases of IPV was one partner seeking to dominate or control the other. The abuse of power that is coercive control regularly led to physical and sexual violence. Justification for such abuse, among churchgoers especially, was frequently grounded in misuse of scripture alongside a theology of male headship.

A clear connection can be made between the concept of omnipotence, God in dominant control over all things, and Anglican women and their children in Australia being at greater risk of domestic violence. Theologies that make men ‘head’ over their wives, families, and households have the effect of gendering power. In homes where God is essentially conceived of as male, gives men more power than women, and anoints a gendered human hierarchy as the natural order of things, danger awaits. For such thinking can very easily justify coercive control, and only one step beyond coercion and control is violence.

Domestic and family violence in Australian society is just one example of how misuses of power based in notions of an all-controlling God can play out. Any minority group can be a target for those who seek to be like an omnipotent God and dominate others. In fact, people who are coercively authoritarian in this way, whatever religious background they have, believe they have the right to be in control. They understand their greater share of power to be in the natural order of things. A change in the prevailing model of power relations from omnipotence to amipotence is therefore as much for the good of broader society as it is for the good of religious communities.

Amipotence affirms the existence of a God who exercises power as a universal influence of uncontrolling love. To describe God as amipotent declares that love is front and center in God, and that love always has priority over power. To truly love requires the give and take of relationship and the relinquishment of control. The amipotent model of the power of God expressed through noncoercive love therefore has huge implications for the good of social relationships.

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is an important resource for considering how God expresses love and power in relationship. The three persons of the Trinity, the Father/Creator, the Son/Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit/Sanctifier, are understood to be equal in all things including power. There is no sense of hierarchy or a controlling order among the three persons that together form the one God. This means that God, in very essence, is a relational community of love.

The Holy Trinity of Christianity is decidedly compatible with amipotence. Not only is the internal essence of God lovingly relational, but God is also in constant loving relationship with the world. This is expressed through God forming a part of the causal network of all that exists, rather than exercising overarching power and controlling everything that happens. The amipotent God is the oft-hidden, always invitational, universal influence for good. As God cannot and does not direct the course of history with power from on high, the impact of the problem of evil is much reduced. This makes belief in the God of love intrinsic to Christianity significantly more tenable. It also makes a big difference to everyday relationships in Christian homes and communities.

The fact that amipotence prioritizes love over power, and relationship over authority, makes it a potential source of assistance to Australians affected by domestic and family violence. The previously mentioned NAFVP Prevalence Study found that faith and church can both assist and hinder victim survivors of domestic violence. It also noted that certain theologies contribute to and amplify violent situations, and that perpetrators actively abuse their positional power. Put simply, omnipotence feeds coercive control, amipotence does the opposite. If Anglicans in Australia, and Christians more generally, taught and championed ideas about God and power that modeled healthy relationship, domestic violence would no longer be a heightened risk for women in the Church.

Similarly, burying omnipotence and championing amipotence may go some way to redressing the power imbalance experienced by certain groups in society. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people who live with disability, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, are known to be at higher risk of all kinds of violence and other abuses of power. A report based on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data indicates that almost half of LGBTQ+ Australians experience high or very high levels of psychological distress compared with one in seven heterosexual Australians. This is due to the prejudice, intimidation, violence, and exclusion that is regularly experienced by the queer community. The report identifies social connection and healthy relationships as the key protective factors for LGBTQ+ people. Social connectedness and healthy relations are firmly tied to societal understandings and expressions of power. Australia would therefore do well to make amipotence the exemplar. Being like God by relating to all with noncoercive love could be transformational.

Assessing the implications of the death of omnipotence and birth of amipotence takes us as far into sociology as it does into theology. For it is an issue for human society, as much as for the church, that people groups who live either culturally or religiously after the likeness of an omnipotent God operate within a maladjusted model of power. Omnipotence is highly suspect. Theologically, it makes little sense. Sociologically, it is detrimental to healthy relationships and communities. It is therefore of great benefit to all people, those of faith and no faith, and the societies and cultures they contribute to and influence, to learn to understand the universal concept of divine power as amipotence. Then to become more like God by modeling their relationships in both church and society on uncontrolling love and regard.

Bio: Eleanor O’Donnell is Director of Identity at the Anglican Schools Commission in Perth, Western Australia and an Anglican priest. She earned her PhD on the nexus between Trinitarian and Process Theology from St Mark’s National Theological Centre (Charles Sturt University) in Canberra. O’Donnell is the author of The Relational Power of God: Considering the Rebel Voice (Pickwick Publications, 2023).

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Eleanor O’Donnell beautifully applies the concept of amipotence to society as a whole. She argues that our shared life together improves when we believe God is loving but not all-powerful. Pursuing likeness to such a God means resisting the temptation to dominate others. This is especially important in how women are treated by those in power. If we imitate a God of love rather than a God who controls, domestic violence will likely diminish. Omnipotence, therefore, subtly undermines healthy relationships and communities. I appreciate Eleanor’s application of why we should reject omnipotence in light of social and ethical concerns.

For more on why Oord thinks worshipping an omnipotent God creates problems, see this article.

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