Love Without Qualification

By Anna Case-Winters

Traditional omnipotence needs a complete overhaul to reclaim divine power as the power of love.

Affirmation

In his book, The Death of Omnipotence, and the Birth of Amipotence, Thomas Jay Oord has offered a substantial, compelling, and most welcome challenge to traditional understandings of omnipotence. Oord has a gift for laying out the problem clearly and insightfully in language that is commendably accessible. There is a fine theological mind at work in this book delving into this critical issue. Oord is conversant with a full array of theological, philosophical, and biblical resources and his argumentation is cogent. As the argument unfolds, his down to earth approach engages well with practical, pastoral, and political issues arising from our misrepresentation of divine power. For anyone not already convinced of the need for a major overhaul of the traditional understanding of omnipotence, surely this book is more than sufficient provocation!

Differentiation

The view of divine power Oord rejects, I also reject. I agree completely that the popular view of divine power needs to be rejected and for all the reasons Oord lays out so masterfully. The problem goes deep. In my view, we have been wrong altogether in our understanding of divine power—both what it is and how it is exercised. I have argued elsewhere that the problem with affirming omnipotence has never been simply one of ascribing too much power to God, but rather ascribing the wrong kind of power. I opt to thoroughly reconsider what kind of power underlies the “potence” in omnipotence, rather than jettisoning the term altogether and formulating a new term. For me, it is not the “omni” that is at issue, but the “potence.” Potence comes from the Latin word potens, meaning “powerful” or “able.” What kind of power have we in mind when we speak of God’s power or God’s ability? Is the common meaning we ascribe to God congruent with our affirmation that, “God is love”?

Biblical Exploration:

In Chapter 1, Oord does a careful and thoughtful exploration of the terms translated “almighty” (shaddai, sabaoth, and pantokrator), and makes a compelling case that some common notions of God’s power have no biblical foundation. This presentation invites us to reconsider suppositions that God’s power is controlling power, the only power there is, and able to do absolutely anything.

Insights he draws out are decisive for reshaping what kind of power we attribute to God. The naming of God as el shaddai, for example, (“God of the breasts, or the breasted God”) evokes associations of God’s power with motherly lifegiving, nourishment, and protection. Further, the frequently recurring biblical terms naming God’s attributes of hesed (steadfast love) and rahamin (compassion or mercy) build upon this. I would add here, that rahamin has its root in the Hebrew term reḥem (רֶחֶם), meaning “womb.” God’s compassion is likened to that which a mother might have for the child of her womb, suggesting a deep empathy and care. This is not controlling power.

“YAHWEH sabaoth” does not mean “God almighty” but “God of hosts.” God’s power is not a monopoly in which God has all the power there is, and it is not a power that works unilaterally. The expression “God of hosts” implies the presence of others who also have power.

Pantokrator is a bit more complicated. The Greek term κράτωρ (krator) does in fact mean “ruler,” “one who has power,” or “one who has authority.” It comes from the root κράτος (kratos), which means “strength,” “power,” or “might.” One can still ask what kind of power, of course. While the Greek term κρατέω (krateo) has as its first meaning “to take hold of,” “to grasp,” or “to hold fast;” it can also be taken in the sense of “having power” or “being strong.” Rethinking pantocrator in terms of “all-holding/sustaining” is perhaps arguable, and it is certainly preferable. However, the best argument may be that it is in fact a mistranslation of shaddai and sabaoth in the Septuagint.

Theological Reflection

I completely agree with Oord’s rejection of compatibilism and self-limitation as a way forward in face of the theodicy problem. Compatibilism is often offered up in support of the free-will defense form of theodicy. However, it tries to maintain the traditional notion of omnipotence in which God is all-controlling. If God controls our decisions, they are not ours; our freedom is not real, and we are not morally responsible. It seems we should admit that this is not simply a paradox. It is a contradiction. In my view, to have a free-will defense one needs a defensible account of free will.

Similarly, self-limitation fails to provide a functional theodicy. If it is voluntary self-limitation, it is not irrevocable. God could step in and prevent horrendous evils. If God does not, it seems that God is indictable for not having done so. In this connection, I appreciate that Oord offers a somewhat more nuanced treatment of John Calvin than others have–even enlisting him in the refutation of divine self-limitation as a theodicy. It is quite right, as Calvin points out, that if, by self-limitation, God is said to “permit” evil, that is not qualitatively different from saying God wills it (91). God wills freedom. Calvin is no determinist. There is no moral responsibility if there is no freedom. If all things are determined, God is not “free” to do a new thing. Free creatures may do evil. In that sense (and only in that sense) can Calvin say, God “wills” what is “contrary” to God’s will (92,108).

With Oord, I question common understandings of divine creation as creatio ex nihilo. This does not seem to be the best reading of Genesis 1. “The earth was without form and void (tohu va-bohu) and darkness covered the face of the deep (tehom)” (v. 2). “Without form and void” describes a preexisting chaos. The tehom is best understood in the context as an unformed, primeval, watery chaos. Cosmos out of chaos seems a better description than creation out of mere blank nothingness. It might be said that God brings something out of what is no thing; bringing measure, form, and order by creative interaction with the primeval chaos. In process-open-relational terms, there was never a time when God was not a Being-in-relation. Instead of the traditional insistence on creatio ex nihilo, which emphasizes God’s absolute control in creating all things, we may speak of creatio ex amore which emphasizes God’s love. God’s creativity is an expression of God’s self-giving love. God has loved all things into being.

Two points of appreciation to add here. First, if I read him correctly, Oord’s treatment of divine acting here has evolved a bit from his discussion in The Uncontrolling Love of God. There he referred to “special divine action,” in talking about mighty deeds that we might name as “miracles.” Here his position is clarified with the “synergy of amipotence” in which miracles occur when the inspirited creation cooperates with divine empowering love ever luring toward the good.

Regarding the “mystery card” theologians often play; I agree with Oord that we play this card too early and too often (60). Sometimes we do this in place of grappling with perplexing questions. Nevertheless, I would not want to misplace the mystery altogether. Perhaps it is best brought into play as a call to humility concerning our conclusions. Anselm proposed that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” We grapple with complex theological questions and offer up our highest and best visions of God. These visions merely point to a God who is always greater. I think Oord might agree with me here.

How does God act in the world? What can God do?

With Oord, I want to affirm divine presence and activity in the world. I take a somewhat different approach though, in trying to understand how this can happen. I am not sure that emphasizing divine incorporeality as the reason there are things God cannot do (65) is our best argument. Some of the discussion of incorporeality may risk falling into the habits of dualism (matter vs. spirit) that open-relational-process thought seeks to avoid.

I would rather argue from a thoroughgoing panentheism. God is in all things and all things are in God. If this is the case, God can act in the world–with and within all things. God’s action is persuasive—not coercive. It takes the form of continual presentation of attractive possibilities for good. In this way God is always working for good in all things. God is ever calling, leading, luring toward good ends in a future that is genuinely open to the self-making and world-making of others. Divine influence is particularly persuasive because God is supremely related to all things (surrelative) and holds out aims to each that are both fitting and attractive. God’s influence is analogous to the power of thought among thoughts and feeling among feelings, and this is the power of inspiration or suggestion.

A related insight from process thought that helps us imagine how God acts in the world is the proposal that God is not simply one actor among other actors in the world. As the Ground of Order and the Ground of Possibility, God is the condition of the possibility of there being any action whatsoever. This is akin to Tillich’s groundbreaking insight that God is not simply a being or even a “Superbeing” but the Ground of Being.

God may be seen to have maximal influence consistent with God’s nature as love and the relational structure of reality. Love acts persuasively, not coercively and God is never the only actor in any event. This helps us understand how what transpires may not be a realization of the good that God intends, but something quite other. Yet God is ever redeeming from the wreckage new possibilities and opportunities for good.

God is love. This is the beginning and end of all our exploring. If we understand God as love, there are no qualifications necessary. The “omni” applies. God’s power has a particular shape. While we may say that God has power, we say that God is love. In popular parlance, power is taken to mean capacity to dominate and control.

Love Without Qualification

Oord is right, the old way of thinking about omnipotence has died the death of a thousand qualifications and can never survive an honest grappling with the problem of suffering and evil. Every charge Oord brings, meets its mark in relation to the notion that God’s power is controlling power. We need a complete overhaul of this way of thinking about God’s power.

The tenacity of this theological construction may reveal a deeper difficulty–that what we really worship is controlling power and not God–not a God who is love. There are social/political/ ecological consequences of divinizing and worshiping controlling power. We see it everywhere. In our contemporary global reality, autocrats abound. Death-dealing systems and structures are everywhere apparent.

There is another way. God’s power reconceived as love is not vulnerable to the charges rightly leveled at the traditional understanding of God’s power. The God of love whom we meet in the biblical texts and terms explored here is a God who gives life, nurtures, protects, sustains, and upholds all with steadfast love and compassion.

Conclusion

What I propose in reconstructing the basic meaning of power usually assumed in omnipotence and what Oord intends in the use of the word Amipotence, are substantially similar. We are very much on the same page with the necessity of rethinking the traditional understanding of omnipotence and reinvesting in our conviction that God is love.

My proposal differs in asserting that it is the “potence” in omnipotence that needs an overhaul, not the “omni.” Once rightly understood as the power of love—the “omni” can be fittingly applied. My suggestion is strategic. I think reinvesting omnipotence with a more theologically sound understanding of God’s power will have more purchase than creating a new word altogether. I could be wrong in this. Time will tell. I must admit that Oord is in good company in creating this neologism. Whitehead took this course offering many new words, and he reminded us of the “fallacy of a complete dictionary.” Whether the new word catches on or not, I cherish the hope that Oord’s critique and rethinking will gain a wide and receptive hearing!

Bio: Anna Case-Winters is Professor of Theology at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. Her interests are in: systematic theology, religion and science, open and relational theology, Reformed theology, emancipatory movements, and theologies attending to economic, ecumenical, ecological issues. She is the author of four books; most recently God Will Be All in All: Theology through the Lens of Incarnation.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Anna Case-Winters agrees with my criticism of the traditional view of God‘s power. She questions creation out of nothing and rejects the mystery card many theologians play. But she’s less happy with my emphasis upon divine incorporeality. Anna wants to retain the word omnipotence but rethink the meaning of “power” associated with it. I understand her strategy and once used it when arguing that God is “Almighty.“ But because both “almighty” and “omnipotence” have long been misinterpreted, and neither are in the Bible, I see value in inventing a new word to describe what Anna and I share in common.

Note: For more on “The Almighty Problem in Scripture,” see this essay.

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