Tovarche: Amipotence’s Doctrinal Domino Effect
By Shawn M. Ryan
Amipotence requires a reevaluation of other doctrines and leads to the birth of new ideas.
“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them… And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1:27-28a, 31a NASB)
In the heart of Christian theology lies a dilemma – the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine postulates a universal inheritance of guilt and moral weakness, stemming from the primal act of disobedience by Adam and Eve. Original sin colors human thought and action with an inherent flaw, creating a chasm between humanity and God. However, the concept of Open and Relational Theism (ORT), and especially Thomas Jay Oord’s emphasis on God’s amipotence – the limitless power to love – at the very least offers a path of reconciliation, if not complete destruction of the doctrine. It provides a structure where we can envision tovarche: an original and active goodness, a force countering the tragic consequences of the belief in original sin.[1]
The concept of amipotence has the potential to fundamentally reframe how we understand the doctrine of sin altogether. Within traditional Christian theology, sin is often seen as a violation of God’s law, a rebellion against God’s will, leading to separation from God and sometimes, eternal consequences. This view often highlights individual guilt and the need for salvation understood primarily as the avoidance of punishment. Amipotence, however, with its emphasis on God’s love and power working through relationality, offers a significantly different lens through which to view the concept of sin.
More specifically, the concept of original sin, a cornerstone of traditional Christian theology, paints a bleak picture of humanity’s inherent nature, rooted in scriptural narratives and the theology of church figures such as St. Augustine. It suggests that the disobedience of Adam and Eve permanently wounded humanity. Their choice to eat the forbidden fruit polluted not only their descendants but the nature of the world itself. Consequently, humans now possess a natural inclination towards sin, an irresistible pull towards self-centeredness and actions contrary to God’s will. However, through the lens of amipotence, we can explore the possibility of an opposing force – an original goodness, or tovarche – inherent within humanity, constantly striving to counter the effects of original sin.
The consequences of adhering to a belief in original sin are profound. Theologians argue it leads to fractured relationships, a distorted sense of self, and a widespread struggle to embrace goodness. In essence, original sin casts a shadow over our ability for love and obedience to God. This, in turn, leads to the creation of other doctrines such as total depravity and prevenient grace. Danielle Shroyer, who has studied and written on original sin had this to say about its effects, “So I call original sin the red sock in our theological laundry, because it has the potential to discolor everything.”[2]
The shortcomings of one doctrine leads to the establishment of other doctrines to offset the potential weaknesses or to clarify possible contradictions, when maybe a review of the original doctrine needs to be fully addressed instead. Likewise, there are times when a new concept or doctrinal belief develops that creates a continuation or deepening that carries it further. In both cases, it is a domino effect, one moving backwards revisiting past beliefs, and another moving forward building upon a new foundation. ORT does both, and Oord’s work on love, particularly uncontrolling love, through his concept of amipotence is a prime example.
Oord argues that God, while infinitely loving, is not all-powerful in the traditional sense of absolute control. Open and Relational theology holds that God either chooses to limit power, or does not possess the necessary power, allowing for genuine freedom within creation. Humans, within this framework, are not puppets predetermined to act according to a divine script. We have true agency – the ability to make meaningful choices. This emphasis on freedom shifts the traditional understanding of God’s role in the existence of evil, placing both greater responsibility and greater potentiality upon humankind.
Central to Oord’s ORT is his concept of amipotence. This power, according to Oord, is the inexhaustible capacity to love. God’s love is not simply benevolence but an active and relentless pursuit of goodness for humankind. It is a love that desires connection, healing, and the growth of all creation. It is a love that is God’s essence, as God is love.
One of the core shifts brought about by amipotence is a de-emphasis on God’s role as a judge dispensing rewards and punishments. God is not primarily concerned with exacting retribution. Amipotence positions God as primarily desiring the flourishing of all creation. Sin, therefore, can be reframed not as an offense against a distant sovereign, but rather a disruption in the harmonious flow of love within and between beings. Sin becomes understood as any action, thought, or attitude that diminishes love, causing harm to oneself, others, or the intricate web of creation.
With this understanding, the focus shifts away from individualistic notions of guilt and towards a more communal sense of responsibility. Amipotence highlights the interconnectedness of all beings; actions that seem to affect only the individual inevitably impact the broader whole in ways both seen and unseen. An act of greed, for example, is not simply a personal moral failing. It creates ripples of harm as resources are taken from others or the environment is damaged. Sin, from this perspective, becomes less about breaking abstract rules and more about inflicting real-world consequences through a lack of love.
In practical terms, an amipotence-infused understanding of sin would likely lead to a greater emphasis on restorative justice practices. Instead of focusing solely on punishment, communities would look towards finding the harm caused by sin and facilitating ways to repair relationships and create a more just and loving society for everyone. Reconciliation, rather than retribution, would become the primary goal. The Church might focus less on condemning sinful behavior and more on offering paths towards healing the damage caused by unloving actions and empowering individuals to become more loving, responsible participants within creation.
It’s important to acknowledge that this shift in understanding does not negate the reality of evil or suffering caused by clearly harmful acts. Amipotence does not imply a lessening of the severity of sin but proposes a different way to understand its origin and purpose. Sin is not caused by God but arises from a combination of the freedom granted to creatures and the immaturity of a creation that continues to evolve. God’s power is not removed from the equation; God works ceaselessly and relentlessly to draw all creation towards greater love and the diminishment of evil.
When we view God through the lens of amipotence, the possibility of tovarche emerges. Tovarche is an inherent force within humankind, a seed of divine goodness planted within us since the beginning. It is not merely the absence of evil but a positive drive towards compassion, righteousness, and reconciliation with God. Tovarche can be seen as an echo of Imago Dei – the belief that we are created in the image of God, thus imbued with a fundamental orientation toward the divine. This inherent ability for original goodness exists within humanity, urging us towards love, compassion, and justice. Tovarche is not simply the absence of sin, but an active force that compels us to reconnect with God and repair the world.
This tension between original sin and tovarche establishes humanity’s central challenge. We are not destined to succumb to sin’s grip. We always hold the potential to choose good. This does not imply easy perfection – far from it. The acceptance of the doctrine of original sin effectively remains a powerful force. Yet, the existence of tovarche suggests that the spark of God’s love burns within us all, urging us to reject the isolating effects of the traditional doctrine concerning sin, looking instead to create a better world. Jesus’ actions as well promote the idea of original goodness and how to use it. Karen Armstrong put it this way, “Jesus did not spend a great deal of time discoursing about the trinity or original sin or the incarnation, which have preoccupied later Christians. He went around doing good and being compassionate.”[3] He modeled for us the Father’s amipotence as well as living out tovarche.
This approach raises important questions about the ultimate fate of those who persistently reject love and choose to inflict harm. Amipotence maintains that God never ceases to love even the most hardened of beings and continues to offer them possibilities for redemption, and tovarche means humanity should follow suit and do the same. However, it also recognizes that true transformation often takes time, and that persistent sin does have lasting, harmful consequences. The exact nature of the afterlife and its potential for reconciliation, especially for those who have caused great suffering, remains complex and requires further theological exploration and is outside the scope of this essay, but it remains valuable for reflection when considering new ideas.
Overall, amipotence offers a way of understanding sin that is less focused on individual guilt and fear of God’s wrath. Instead, it highlights the real-world impact of unloving actions and underscores the responsibility each person bears to contribute, as best as they are able, to the overall wellbeing of creation. It invites us to focus not only on our personal salvation but on actively taking part in the ongoing process of transforming the world through the power of love, which through tovarche we are more than capable of doing so. While amipotence, or tovarche, does not provide easy answers to the age-old problem of sin, they both offer a framework that emphasizes healing, reconciliation, and the persistent hope that God’s love ultimately guides all creation towards a greater flourishing.
In his closing sentences, Thomas Jay Oord writes, “Amipotence affirms the existence of a powerful God whose universal influence is uncontrolling love” (150). This influence, both in creation and through personal relationship, is precisely how tovarche is born in humanity–it is precisely part of the Imago Dei. These theological ideas are not just abstract, and they manifest in everyday life and actions. For example, we unfortunately see time and time again the actions of tovarche brought through the influence of amipotence with every natural disaster. We see many heroes that act in love with their original goodness to help protect, save, and restore. These people may or may not consider themselves Christians, and they do not have to, because amipotence influences all of humanity and tovarche is present in all as well. Even Pope Francis said, “We are all fundamentally good.”[4]
Theological history offers diverse interpretations of the interplay between grace and human effort. Oord’s perspective, however, emphasizes a continuous co-creation between God and humankind made possible by amipotence. God’s love provides the possibility of redemption from original sin as it has been taught and understood. Yet, the realization of a world filled with tovarche rests heavily on humanity’s choices. Each compassionate action, each stand against injustice, and each effort towards forgiveness can be seen as expressions of tovarche, fueling the fire of original goodness.
Bio: Shawn M. Ryan, M.A. Theological Studies, is a non-vocational lay theologian and founder of Other Sheep Theology Group. Shawn has contributed to other works and is one of the “Voices” for the Center for Open and Relational Theology. He works to share with those in non-academic fields to connect with people with varying worldviews in their personal and everyday environments.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
Shawn Ryan insightfully shows how amipotence—God’s uncontrolling love—reshapes theology. It challenges traditional understandings of sin, particularly original sin, and steers thought away from retributive models of divine punishment. Instead, amipotence emphasizes restorative justice rooted in divine love. Ryan introduces the concept of tovarché, a term previously unfamiliar to me, which enriches this theological vision. His analysis thoughtfully explores the broader implications of God’s non-coercive nature, inviting readers to reimagine justice, sin, and divine action. I’m grateful for his contribution and the fresh lens he offers on crucial doctrinal themes. His essay offers a meaningful advance in contemporary theology.
For more on Oord’s view of Adam as not a historical person, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1] This is a word coined specifically for this essay based on a combination of Hebrew (tov, good) and Greek (arche, original) meaning original goodness. It draws some similarities to the Jewish traditional concept of yetzer ha-tov but remains distinct in that it is derived from the Imago Dei and our relational connection to God. Yetzer ha-tov is contrasted with yetzer ha-ra which cannot come from God who does not act in evil.
[2] Danielle Shroyer, “Author: Jesus didn’t believe in ‘original sin,’ and neither should we,” interview by Jonathan Merrit, Religion News Service, January 13, 2017. https://religionnews.com/2017/01/13/author-jesus-didnt-believe-in-original-sin-and-neither-should-we/.
[3] “Atoms and Eden: Conversations on Religion and Science,” Book by Steve Paulson. Oxford University Press, p. 63, October 5, 2010.
[4] Pope Francis, interview by Norah O’Donnell, “60 Minutes,” CBS, May 20, 2024, quoted in Mark A. Kellner, The Washington Times, May 20, 2024.