The Power of Abiding Love That Will Not Let Us Go
By Charissa Jaeger-Sanders
Amipotence fosters a trinitarian pansyntheism that celebrates the love of the Divine.
“Even though I keep walking through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for You are ever with me.
Your rod and your staff, they are comforting me.”[i]
Introduction
Gathering at her gingham-covered table, Granny, with her weathered, flour-covered hands, spun stories and showed me how to craft scratch-made biscuits. Simultaneously, we would recite scriptures, including the twenty-third Psalm.[ii] There is true power in the fourth verse of this iconic Psalm that makes a profoundly theological statement about life and the Divine[iii]-cosmos relationship that affirms Oord’s compelling concept of “amipotence.”[iv]
We seem to be ever walking through valleys that are overshadowed by death – the death of loved ones, of dreams, hopes, and ideas, and of relationships. We seem to be trudging through valleys subsumed in darkness[v] – the darkness of uncertainty and doubt, of mental health struggles and addiction, and of oppression and violence. Yet, scripture reminds us[vi] that we are not alone. “Even in the most life-threatening situation, God’s provision is sufficient.”[vii] There is a powerful force of Love at work in the world – Immanuel, ever accompanying, guiding, and empowering us.
This beloved Psalm[viii] gives insight into the nature of God, highlighting two tools that shepherds would have carried: 1) The rod, a sturdy stick that would have been used to fight off wild animals who threatened the sheep, symbolizes Divine strength and protection, and 2) the staff, which often had a curved top, was used for guiding and showing lovingkindness.
This essay, building on the work of Thomas J. Oord’s theological concept of “amipotence,” Ruth Page’s understanding of “pansyntheism,” and Niels Henrik Gregersen’s “deep incarnation,” will showcase how amipotence fosters developing a theological understanding of Trinitarian Pansyntheism that celebrates the power of the abiding Divine love that will not let us go.[ix]
Oord’s Amipotence
Oord’s book, rooted in scripture with an eye toward theodicean implications,offers a refreshing take on the power of God.[x] Omnipotence, a loaded term, has to be qualified so much that when used,[xi] it often misrepresents Who God is and does much theological damage. Further, I concur that God is not omnicausal.[xii] God has granted creatures free will and empowered materiality. Moreover, God is not the author of evil, nor controlling.[xiii] God is nourisher, protector,[xiv] and all-holding/all-sustaining,[xv] exercising universal influence.[xvi] On the whole, I wholeheartedly concur with many of Oord’s assessments.
Yet, in contradistinction from Oord, I do not think that amipotence is incompatible with creatio ex nihilo.[xvii] Additionally, I do not theologically agree that God needs us. Oord writes:
This loving God acts moment by moment, exerting causal influence throughout creation. God creates, sustains, saves, and transforms. Nothing and no one is more influential; the uncontrolling love of an amipotent God is universally active and everlasting. But the flourishing God desires requires creaturely contributions and conducive conditions in creation. A loving God needs us because love is relational.[xviii]
This quote’s last sentence gives me pause. Yes, love is relational. God in God’s Self is already relational – already Perfect Perichoretic Love. However, God chose and keeps choosing us. God decided to create. Creator opted to be in loving relationship with created. Creation is a free choice of a loving Creator. We need the Divine. The Divine chooses to create and be in relationship with us.
Deep Incarnation[xix]
Many aspects of Oord’s amipotence pair beautifully with the theological concepts of “deep incarnation” and “pansyntheism.” Deep incarnation points to how much God is for all of creation. Danish theologian Niels Henrik Gregersen (b. 1956) coined and defined the phrase “deep incarnation,” stating:
The view that God’s own Logos (Wisdom and Word) was made flesh in Jesus Christ in such a comprehensive manner that God, by assuming the particular life story of Jesus the Jew from Nazareth, also conjoined the material conditions of creaturely existence (“all flesh”), shared and ennobled the fate of all biological life forms (“grass” and “lilies.”), and experienced the pains of sensitive creatures (“sparrows” and “foxes”) from within. Deep incarnation thus presupposes a radical embodiment that reaches into the roots (radices) of material and biological existence as well as into the darker sides of creation: the tenebrae creationis.[xx]
In the Incarnation, the Wisdom and Word of God became sarx[xxi] and dwelled among us,[xxii] profoundly enmeshed in what Gregersen calls “the whole malleable matrix of materiality.”[xxiii] This “radical or ‘deep’ view of incarnation implies ‘an incarnation in the very tissue of biological existence and system of nature.’”[xxiv] The power of the Divine chose to be intertwined with, in, through, and under creation in a profound, radical, embodied, and thoroughgoing manner, empowering and connecting with creation since the outset.
Trinitarian Pansyntheism[xxv]
From the beginning, Christians have celebrated that God is both Immanent and Transcendent, “Intimate and Beyond,”[xxvi] and what feminist Catholic theologian Lacugna (1952-1997) describes as “radical immanence (nearness) and radical transcendence (this word refers to God’s otherness, not remoteness).[xxvii] Genesis[xxviii] attests that since the start, it has been a Trinitarian affair: the Dabar/Logos andNeshema/Pneuma of God, the Word and Breath of God have been at work in creation as what Irenaeus describes as the hands of God.[xxix] God called creation into existence and breathed into creation sustaining life. God continues to call creation into existence and sustains creation with Divine breath. God’s immanence becomes more revelatory, showing the depth of Divine solidarity with all of creation, in the Incarnation. Lutheran theologian Peters (b. 1941) states it this way:
. . . the ineffable and mysterious God of the Beyond does not remain in the state of beyondness. It is not enough to send an intermediary into the world. It is not enough to connect heaven and earth with a kite string called the Logos. God in God’s own self is present in the incarnation. The relationality within the divine life opens out into a full relationship with the cosmos.[xxx]
In Godself, the Triune God of Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit is inherently relational; through the wondrous perichoresis of the Trinity, this relationality is expressed in the economy of salvation, in the Creator’s relationship with the created. LaCugna states it this way, “The one perichoresis, the one mystery of communion, includes God and humanity as beloved partners in the dance.”[xxxi] Moreover, God includes all materiality in this dance of life, pointing to the power of love at work within creation.
Most scholars place the existence of the universe at approximately 13.7 billion years ago[xxxii] and the emergence of ancestors to humans somewhere between 5 and 7 million years ago. Therefore, it is logical to assume that God as Creator has long had[xxxiii] a relationship with created, to what American ecologist and philosopher Abramscalls the “more-than-human world.”[xxxiv] God’s dynamic relationship with all of materiality has existed well before humans (and their ancestors) emerged on the scene and continues to the present. Materiality in and of itself is pronounced as good and matters to the Divine, affirming that the Triune God is an ever-abiding, with-us God, Who desires our flourishing.
Within the Christian understanding, there is a captivating[xxxv] theological concept that Scottish Reformed theologian Page (1935-2015) terms pansyntheism. The Greek preposition syn, translated as “with” or “together,” is where we get words like symbiotic and synthesis.[xxxvi] So, pansyntheism communicates the idea of God with us, God with all things, and all things with the Divine.
Pansynthesim can be understood in a Trinitarian manner, whereby the power of the Holy Spirit abides at the most profound level of creation, truly and profoundly Immanuel, extending to the most micro level and celebrating the profound relationality of God with all materiality. Yet, “God relates to all according to their kind, being unlike humans in knowing what it is to be a tree frog or a jaguar, knowing indeed the particular situation of any jaguar better than the animal knows itself.”[xxxvii] Therefore, Page uses “the word ‘relationship’ for this connection, although it is a human term and may not be [quite] right for nonhuman creatures,”[xxxviii] it points to this “valuable connection,”[xxxix] describing the ways God intensely and intimately connects and relates with each aspect of the cosmos.
The sacred texts repeatedly affirm that God dwells with and among us.[xl] Pansyntheism highlights how “each creature lives in God’s presence and has its own relationship with God, to Whom it is all valuable and intimately known.”[xli] In the very design of creation, God has been and continues to be actively abiding with creation: “Creation is given room to develop, but not abandoned; possibility is released, but creation is not relinquished. From the beginning, the gift of possibility elicits the response of becoming and being,”[xlii] allowing creation to choose and actualize many possibilities.
God’s design for creation was one of possibilities. Page states that God “let possibility be without designing how it should be fulfilled.”[xliii] In the very design of creation, God intended for and allowed there to be an openness of many potentialities, many possibilities, which could be actualized, pointing to how God lovingly empowers creation. Yet, existing conditions contribute to ongoing responses: “Our world is structured from the possibilities which have already been acted on,”[xliv] so “new possibilities have to occur within (or overturn) the present structure.”[xlv] Therefore, our present-moment choices are impacted by past choices and current circumstances.
Building on the work of philosopher of science Sir Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994), Page articulates that what is experienced by creation is “neither the push of Aristotelian or Cartesian causality nor the pull and push of Newtonian action, but the jostling co-existence of many possibilities whose inter-relationship with existing conditions brings about what happens.”[xlvi] Throughout Page’s theology, we see a deep relationality that celebrates our interconnectedness, coexistence, and choice to actualize many possibilities.
Pansyntheism maintains the distinction between Divine and created yet also celebrates the radically relational nature of how the Divine is connected with creation, who can experience union with the Divine, glimpse Uncreated, and connect with Creator. God and creation retain freedom. There is freedom yet deep relationality between the Divine and creation. Furthermore, all creation is interdependently connected in this web of life.
Conclusion
Oord’s concept of amipotence offers an insightful interpretation of the power of God, which fosters the development of a Trinitarian Pansyntheism framework to celebrate the God-Cosmos relationship, pointing to an abiding and powerful Love that will not let us go.
Bio: Since Spring 2020, Charissa Jaeger-Sanders has been a Ph.D. Student at the Graduate Theological Union. As an ordained United Methodist clergyperson, emerging scholar-practitioner, and comparative theologian, she works at the intersections of Wesleyan theology and Hindu Śākta thealogy, is in dialogue with the natural sciences, and seeks to understand better the Divine relationship with materiality and the theodicean implications.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
Charissa Jaeger-Sanders draws a link between amipotence, deep incarnation, and pansyntheism. The term “deep incarnation” gained prominence through the work of Niels Gregersen, and I like it. “Pansyntheism” is championed by Ruth Page, whose ideas also resonate with me. The main difference between Charissa’s view and mine concerns whether God necessarily and eternally relates with creation. I believe God’s relationship with creation should be considered necessary rather than voluntary on God’s part. A God of voluntary relations might not relate with creatures and creation, which undermines trust in God. Despite this, Charissa and I share overwhelming similarities, making our differences relatively minor.
For more on Oord’s view of God’s necessary relation to creation, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[i] Psalm 23:4. My own translation.
[ii] Other things we would recite included the hundredth Psalm and the Lord’s Prayer, and when I visited my grandparents, when I was not with her in the kitchen, I was rocking on the front porch with Papa singing hymns and hearing his numerous stories.
[iii] Because I am a scholar-practitioner, whenever I am referring to God, the Divine, or using any word to refer to God, that word will be capitalized as an intentional sign of reverence.
[iv] According to Oord, amipotence means that “love comes first in God, and this priority matters for understanding divine power. God always acts in loving ways, but divine love never controls.” See Thomas J. Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, (Grasmere, ID: SacraSage Press, Kindle Edition, 2023), 10. I wholeheartedly concur. God is foremost Love.
[v] According to McCann, in verse 4, “the word that the NIV translates “the shadow of death” elsewhere seems to mean simply ‘darkness’ or ‘deep darkness’ (see Job 3:5; 10:22; 12:22; 16:16; Pss 44:19; 107:10; Amos 5:8) The word, however, is unusual. It appears to be a compounding of words meaning ‘shadow’ and ‘death.” See J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “Psalm 23:1-6 Commentary,” The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Vol. IV, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, and Psalms, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 768.
[vi] See texts like Leviticus 26:12, Jeremiah 32:38, Ezekiel 37:27, John 1:14, 2 Corinthians 6:16, and Revelation 21:3.
[vii] J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “Psalm 23:1-6 Commentary,” The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Volume IV, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, and Psalms, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 768.
[viii] Often attributed to David.
[ix] I can still hear in my memory my paternal grandmother singing, the words of a beloved hymn written by Scottish minister George Matheson:
O Love that will not let me go,
I rest my weary soul in thee.
I give thee back the life I owe,
that in thine ocean depths its flow
may richer, fuller be.
[x] One of the ways that Oord talks about God’s power is the sense in which God can be almighty. He states, “In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in three senses. God 1) is the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) is the source of might for all.” (Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, 12).
[xi] See Chapter 2 ofThomas J. Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence.
[xii] Oord writes, “I consider the popular phrase ‘God is in control’ to be a form of ‘God exerts all power.’ To be in control, God must be the omnicause. But as Anna Case-Winters points out, ‘when God is seen as totally in control, any credible concept of freedom and autonomy for human beings is relinquished and human actions lose their significance.” (Case-Winters, God’s Power, 9). I agree.” (Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, 28).
[xiii] See Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, especially 31.
[xiv] Oord spends some time showcasing how God is both a nourisher and protector. See The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, especially 16-19.
[xv] “All-holding” and “all-sustaining” are two ways that Oord translates the Greek term pantokrator. See The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, especially 22 and 37.
[xvi] Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, 25.
[xvii] Oord points to amipotence being incompatible with creatio ex nihilo (see pp.109 ff) and references previous work and research (which I have not yet read) See his footnote 71, which states: “I explore this doctrine’s problems for a coherent theology of love in Pluriform Love, ch. 8. See also Thomas Jay Oord, “Eternal Creation and Essential Love,” in T&T Handbook on Suffering and the Problem of Evil, Johannes Grossel and Matthias Grebe, eds. (London: T&T Clark, 2022). In addition, creation from nothing entails the following five problems: (1) Absolute nothingness cannot be conceived. (2) The view was first proposed by Gnostics who assumed creation is inherently evil. (3) We have no evidence our universe originally came into being from nothing. (4) We have no evidence creatures or creaturely entities can emerge instantaneously at any time from absolute nothingness. (5) The view assumes God once acted all alone, but power is a social concept only meaningful in relation to others.” Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, 120. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to truly flesh out an understanding of amipotence that affirms creatio ex nihilo. That said, I aver that an amipotent God could also create ex nihilo. In short, just because we cannot conceive it, it does not negate the possibility. One can affirm both creatio ex nihilo and the goodness of creation and materiality. No one besides God was present when the universe came into being, so we do not know enough to make a determination either way. Complexity in creatures has emerged over time, and although we use the metaphorical language of the Big Bang to understand the origins of the universe, our understanding of how materiality emerged is murky. Finally, because I understand God as Trinitarian, the social concept of relationality is inherent in my understanding of the Divine.
[xviii] Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, 10. Italics added for emphasis.
[xix] Niels Henrik Gregersen coined the language of deep incarnation, which can be seen in several of his writings. For one example, see Niels Henrik Gregersen’s “The Extended Body of Christ: Three Dimensions of Deep Incarnation” in Incarnation: On the Scope and Depth of Christology edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015).
[xx] Niels Henrik Gregersen, “The Extended Body of Christ: Three Dimensions of Deep Incarnation” in Incarnation: On the Scope and Depth of Christology edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015) 225-226. Italics added for emphasis.
[xxi] Sarx is the Greek word used in the New Testament for “flesh,” and encompasses all of materiality.
[xxii] See John 1:14.
[xxiii] Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Deep Incarnation: Why Evolutionary Continuity Matters in Christology,” Toronto Journal of Theology 26, no. 2 (2010), 176.
[xxiv] Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Deep Incarnation: From Deep History to Post-Axial Religion,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies [Online], Volume 72 Number 4 (28 October 2016), 1.
[xxv] I first heard the theological concept pansyntheism from Ruth Page, who articulates a pansyntheistic understanding of the God-Cosmos relationship in her book God and the Web of Creation, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1996).
[xxvi] See Ted Peters, God – The World’s Future: Systematic Theology for a New Era, Third Edition, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015).
[xxvii] Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 323.
[xxviii] See especially Genesis 1 and 2.
[xxix] In Against Heresies (Book 5, Chapter 6), Irenaeus writes: “Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God.” (Italics added for emphasis. Masculine gendered language retained.) Elsewhere in Against Heresies, Book 4: Chapter 20, Irenaeus used Word and Wisdom to further describe the two hands of God: “For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things.” (Italics added for emphasis. Masculine gendered language retained.) Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is available via: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm.
[xxx] Ted Peters, God – The World’s Future: Systematic Theology for a New Era, Third Edition, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 205. Italics added for emphasis.
[xxxi] Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, 274.
[xxxii] For example, N.A.S.A. writes: “with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years” (See “Then vs. Now: The Age of the Universe,” Imagine the Universe, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, May 2006, https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/featured_science/tenyear/age.html#:~:text=But%20with%20advances%20in%20technology,of%20only%20200%20million%20years)
[xxxiii] And still has.
[xxxiv] See David Abrams, “Question: What Does it Mean to Be Human? On Being Human in a More-Than-Human World,” Humans and Nature, (July 22, 2012), https://humansandnature.org/to-be-human-david-abram/
[xxxv] And, in my opinion, undervalued and understudied.
[xxxvi] See Jerry H. Gill, “Panentheism or Pansyntheism?” (Process Studies 48, no. 2, 2019), 274.
[xxxvii] Ruth Page, “Panentheism and Pansyntheism: God in Relation” in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, eds., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 229.
[xxxviii] Page, “Panentheism and Pansyntheism: God in Relation,” 229.
[xxxix] Ibid.
[xl] See texts like Deuteronomy 31:6 and 8, Joshua 1:9, Psalm 23, Psalm 139, Psalm 145:18, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 41:10, Isaiah 43:2, Zephaniah 3:17, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 28:20, John 1:14, John 14;16-17, Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 3:16, Philippians 4:6-7, Hebrews 13:5, and Revelation 21:3.
[xli] Ruth Page, God and the Web of Creation, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1996), xix. Italics indicates my emphasis.
[xlii] Page, God and the Web of Creation, 39-40.
[xliii] Page, God and the Web of Creation, 8.
[xliv] Page, God and the Web of Creation, 14.
[xlv] Page, God and the Web of Creation, 14. Italics indicates my emphasis.
[xlvi] Ruth Page referencing Popper’s ideas, God and the Web of Creation, 14. Italics indicates my emphasis.