Omnipotence, Amipotence, or Just the Steadfast Love of God?
By Robert D. Cornwall
Questions remain about amipotence as an answer to the presence of evil in the world.
What does it mean to say that God is omnipotent? Does that philosophical term raise more questions than it answers? The late Disciples of Christ theologian Joe Jones addressed omnipotence, suggesting that if God has all the power available this would deny any power to creatures, like us. Therefore, “If God is simply all the power there is, then there is no reality beyond or different from God.” That doesn’t mean God doesn’t have any power, but in his view, the nature of God’s power is defined by the “power of God’s love, and hence there is no unrestricted power of God that is before God’s love.”[1] In other words, God has sufficient power to do what God needs to do, but when God’s power is defined, even limited, by love, which leaves plenty of room for us to move and have our being.
While omnipotence is a problematic concept, do we need to replace it with another philosophical concept such as Thomas Jay Oord’s neologism of amipotence? While I don’t have any problem with the term itself, however, and despite my appreciation for what Oord is trying to do with his proposal, I’m left wondering why we can’t just stick with biblical words like the Hebrew word hesed and embrace God’s steadfast love that endures forever?
Thomas Jay Oord is well known for his work on the nature of love. I regularly turn to his books dealing with that topic, and like him, I would prioritize love in defining the nature of God. However, I’ve struggled with the moves he has made in recent years when it comes to defining the nature of God’s power in the world. These moves, influenced by Process Theology in pursuit of a workable theodicy (defense of God in the face of evil) have led him to a position that places significant limits on God’s power. That is, God can persuade and suffer along with us, but it feels as if everything is left to us. So, while I locate myself within the larger Open and Relational Theology sphere, I worry that there is an overemphasis on theodicy, at least among those influenced by Process Theology, such that little room is left for God to move and act in the world.
Part of my struggle with what Oord is trying to do in his book The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence is that I’m not sure any theodicy ultimately works. I don’t believe that God is responsible for evil, but I haven’t found a truly satisfying answer to the question of how God can be good and loving, and have sufficient power to fulfill God’s purposes, even as evil continues to exist. When it comes to defining evil, which is a complex issue, are natural events evil? It’s one thing to call the Holocaust an evil act because it is a human act, but how is an earthquake or tornado a form of evil? Isn’t an earthquake just part of the natural order of things? Now, we might ask whether human activity in the world can lead to destructive natural events, like a tornado or hurricane. But is the hurricane itself evil? Rather than pursue a workable theodicy I would rather work with others in partnership with God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, seeking to overcome the effects of evil in the world.
When it comes to his proposal in The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, Thomas Jay Oord suggests that those who embrace divine omnipotence, embrace at least one of the three principles. 1) God exerts all power. 2) God can do absolutely anything. 3) God can control others or circumstances. While proponents may not embrace all three principles and may qualify what they mean, their definitions will include one or all these principles. Qualifiers might include suggesting that God can do anything except what is illogical. Or God could do anything, but God chooses to self-limit to give humans the freedom to act. He suggests that when problems emerge with omnipotence, proponents appeal to mystery. Maybe this is where I struggle the most. Oord is not comfortable with mystery, desiring as I see it, rational consistency in everything, while I’m more comfortable with mystery and a bit more chaos.
I join Oord in rejecting the idea that God is omnipotent if that means God has all power so that God can do anything without any limitations. I’m more comfortable than he is with the idea that God self-limits, which puts me closer to Open Theists than Process-oriented folks. I raised the question at the beginning as to whether we need a new term to describe God’s power, with Oord offering the word amipotence. I suggested that we simply stick with the biblical term hesed, steadfast love. The question, however, still has to do with how limited God’s power is. If love is the key to understanding divine power, as both Oord and I affirm, then whatever limits are placed on God, love is the significant factor. The next question has to do with how Scripture understands divine power, considering the confession that God is love (1 John 4:7-8). This leads us then to the use of the word almighty to describe God’s nature, such as in the translation of the Hebrew El Shaddai.
Oord, along with others, suggests that Almighty God is a mistranslation of the Hebrew El Shaddai, suggesting that it would be better to translate it as “God of the Mountains” or “God with Breasts.” The same would be true of the Hebrew Yahweh Sabaoth, most often translated as “Lord of Hosts” or “Lord Almighty.” Oord suggests that if El Shaddai is translated as “God with Breasts,” it suggests the idea of a nurturing God rather than an all-powerful God (I have no problem with the idea that God nurtures, I’m just wondering about the translation).
The problem here, as is often true, is that translations are tricky. Translators must look at context and usage to determine meaning. When it comes to the Hebrew Old Testament, translators must also take into consideration ancient translations of those Scriptures to help them make the right choice. One of the earliest translations of the Old Testament is the Greek Septuagint, which uses the word Pantokrator. This Greek word can refer to something akin to omnipotence. Pantokrator is generally translated from the Septuagint as “almighty.”
Now, I agree with Oord, that the biblical writers likely did not have the Greek philosophical concept of omnipotence in mind but when it comes to translation. Being that neither Oord nor I are by training biblical scholars or language experts, I will leave translation matters to those who know the language better than me. Thus, I’m comfortable with the translation Almighty God, until I see sufficient evidence to change my mind.
There are other areas where I might quibble with Oord in his discussion of divine power, including his suggestion that the idea of omnipotence dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Since neither of us embraces the Greek philosophical concept of omnipotence, I didn’t find that discussion overly helpful. So, the big issue remains the problem of evil (theodicy), for which I have not found a workable solution. Oord wants to find a solution that resolves all the questions, without appealing to mystery. I’m not sure this is possible. So, while I agree that reconciling the premise that God is love with the existence of evil is a problem, I’m not sure that limiting God’s power to the extent that Oord does solves the problem. I appreciate his determination to find that solution, but for now, I’m willing to leave room for unanswerable questions. Instead, I will continue to root my faith in the promise that God’s steadfast love (hesed) endures forever. I hold that this love both sustains and empowers us to persevere and move in partnership with God who acts on our behalf in pursuit of the onset of the new creation when God will bring all things to completion and evil will have met its match.
While I’m not sure we need a new term, if we are to embrace the idea of amipotence, I think we’ll need more information. I confess that I was disappointed that in reading The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, so little attention was given to developing the concept. For one thing, I wonder if this idea is so rooted in Process thinking that it’s not transferable to other possible perspectives.
While I have questions concerning Thomas Jay Oord’s proposal as outlined in The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, he addresses an important area of concern for Christians, and that is the nature of power, whether divine or human. Whether or not God is omnipotent or amipotent, Christians need to carefully consider the way we use power in our own lives. As David Fitch has pointed out in Reckoning with Power (Brazos Press, 2024), not all power is the same.
When it comes to Oord’s proposal, my critique is largely rooted in my concerns about the viability of Process thought, as well as the ongoing influence of other theological sources that have formed me. That includes Karl Barth, whose emphasis on divine transcendence, continues to influence my thinking, even as I acknowledge that God is also present in, with, and among us (divine immanence). How might we keep these two dimensions in tension so that we can embrace God’s love and God’s power, even if that power is defined by love?
I still have questions about what amipotence involves, but I’m open to hearing more. My question, in the end, concerns the proposed solution to the presence of evil in the world. Oord’s proposal, which suggests that God can’t prevent evil even if God wants to because God’s power is limited, has appealed to some who struggle to make sense of the presence of evil in the world. I still have questions about whether the proposal will appeal to many who have given up on God. Is this amipotent God who lacks the power to stop evil worth embracing? That is the question of the hour, a question I’m not sure has yet been answered.
As for me, I believe that God can do more than my friend Thomas Jay Oord believes is possible. Whatever level of power God does possess, I also believe that it is our calling as followers of Jesus to live in such a way that we express our love for God with our being as well as our love for our neighbor. To me, that means committing ourselves to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). As we do this, I will keep my eyes focused on the future eschaton, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28 NRSVue).
Bio: Robert D. Cornwall is a Disciples of Christ Minister-at-Large, theologian, and author. He is the co-author with Ronald J. Allen of Second Thoughts about the Second Coming: Understanding the End Times, Our Future, and Christian Hope (Westminster John Knox Press), along with numerous other books. He blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey (www.bobcornwall.com).
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
Robert Cornwall argues that my position overly restricts God. Cornwall questions how I define, although I have defined it often in my books. Instead of solving the problem of evil, he says we should collaborate with God to overcome evil. However, I respond that if God is omnipotent, this deity allowed the evil Cornwall wants to overcome. So it must not be genuine evil. Attempting to eradicate it might oppose God’s purposes. While Cornwall seeks a future solution to evil, I seek a reasonable solution now, admitting that I can never be sure which solution is ultimately the right one.
Note: For more on why creatures must work with God to overcome evil, see this essay.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. Joe Jones, A Grammar of Theology: Systematic Explorations in Christian Life and Doctrine, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 1:219