The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence (Thomas Jay Oord) - Review

THE DEATH OF OMNIPOTENCE AND BIRTH OF AMIPOTENCE. By Thomas Jay Oord. Nampa, ID: SacraSage Press, 2023. 159 pages.

                I’m not a big proponent of divine omnipotence. To say that God is omnipotent or has all power creates a number of difficulties. Proponents may offer (and do offer) many caveats, but whether these caveats alleviate the problems is debatable. I like what Joe Jones has to say about omnipotence, suggesting that if God has all the power available then this would deny any power to creatures.  Thus, “If God is simply all the power there is, then there is no reality beyond or different from God” [Jones, Grammar of Theology, 1:219]. That said, Jones believes, 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” [Jones, 1:219]. God has sufficient power to do what God needs to do to be God, but there is room for us to move and have our being.

                I offer the above paragraph as a preface to my review of Thomas Jay Oord’s latest book The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence. While I appreciate the goal, I will confess up front that I found this book to be somewhat frustrating. I have long enjoyed Tom’s books and have had the privilege of contributing to several Open and Relational volumes that Tom has either published or edited (see especially my essay “What Use Is God?” in Uncontrolling Love: Essays Exploring the Love of God). When it comes to The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, I find myself offering a rather contrarian assessment, especially when compared to the response of other respondents. Again, I’m not defending omnipotence here, it’s just that the deconstruction of omnipotence may, in my opinion, go too far leaving us with a God who loves us but can’t do much about it. Although this is a contrarian review, I offer it as one who is sympathetic to the cause. After all, Tom sent me a review copy.

                I noted above the work of the late Joe R. Jones, a Disciples of Christ theologian, for whom I have had great respect through the years. He embraces the term “Almighty” when speaking of God, a term that Tom finds wanting. Like Jones, I would like to hang on to this description of God, though like Jones I do not equate it with omnipotence. I should also note that while I have an affinity to Open and Relational Theology, I also draw on other traditions and theologians including Karl Barth, who emphasizes God’s transcendence. My concern as I approach this book and Tom’s recent work, which I’ve found beneficial at points, is that the portrayal of God has become so restricted, such that it appears that God can’t do very much. I wonder if that reflects the biblical tradition and if it provides people with the kind of encouragement that some reviewers have suggested.

                Regarding the concept of omnipotence, it is true that most theologians and those committed to omnipotence qualify their descriptions and definitions. It’s not that God can do whatever God pleases if that would run contrary to God’s character and previous actions. Even John Calvin who believed that God is ultimately responsible for everything that occurs offered qualifiers. The question is, can one go too far in the other direction in rejecting omnipotence?

                As I’ve read Tom’s work and that of others who take similar positions, it seems to me that the driving question is one of theodicy. How do we account for the proposal that God is good and all-powerful, and that evil continues to exist? Something has to go. Either God is not good or lacks the power to deal with evil. In seeking to deconstruct the arguments for omnipotence, Tom draws significantly from Process theology/philosophy.  Process theology, as I understand it, starts with the premise that God’s power is one of persuasion. Thus, God cannot prevent evil from occurring, but God can suffer with us, bringing us encouragement. There is much more to this, but this is not the place to go into it. Whether this suffices, perhaps it does for some but surely not for everyone.

                Ultimately, I’m not sure that any theodicy ultimately works. So, while I don’t believe that God is responsible for evil, I’m just not sure there is a truly satisfying answer to this question. When it comes to defining evil—this is complex. Human forms of evil, such as the Holocaust, are different from natural events that destroy and kill—an earthquake or tornado. Because I find trying to defend God’s honor problematic, the best I can do is to live in a way that seeks to overcome evil in the world.

                As to the book itself, Tom spends the majority of the book—118 pages out of 150 pages—deconstructing omnipotence. In his introduction, he notes that those who affirm the premise that God is omnipotent, embrace at least one of the three principles. The first principle is that God exerts all power. Secondly, God can do absolutely anything. Finally, God can control others or circumstances. Some embrace one but not all, nevertheless, they affirm the premise that God is omnipotent, often qualifying what they mean. For example, they might say that God can do anything except what is illogical. Or God might do anything but can choose not to do something, perhaps allowing us the freedom to act. He suggests that when problems emerge, proponents appeal to mystery. I will note here that I seem to be a lot more comfortable with mystery than is true for Tom.

                Now to the chapters in which Tom deconstructs omnipotence. He begins by arguing that omnipotence is not biblical. At least in terms of the philosophical definitions of omnipotence that developed over time, he is correct. The question then relates to how Scripture understands God’s power. That leads to biblical descriptions and names for God, such as El Shaddai, often translated as God Almighty. Tom suggests that this is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The same is true of Yahweh Sabaoth, which is also translated as Lord Almighty or Lord of Hosts/Forces. As for El Shaddai, he suggests that the better translation is something like God with Breasts, such that the term describes a nourishing God rather than an all-powerful God. The problem, of course, is that translation is tricky, and thus we need to look at context and usage to determine meaning. Interestingly, he suggests that not only is our typical English translation wrong, but so is the translation into Greek (Septuagint), which uses Pantokrator, a word often understood to refer to something like omnipotence. Now, ultimately, Tom doesn’t believe that any of these words suggest omnipotence. He may be correct in this, but we might want to question the idea that biblical writers were consistent in their usage. Something I’ve noticed in Tom’s writing is that he likes things to be consistent. Ultimately, I’m going to leave this debate to the biblical scholars, who know better than I do what is the best translation.

                While I found the first chapter intriguing and worth pondering, I found myself a bit befuddled by the second chapter that focuses on philosophy. In this chapter, Tom lays out a variety of qualifications that have been offered to better define omnipotence. He suggests that omnipotence dies the death of a thousand qualifications. That may be true, but I found some of his qualifications rather odd. In fact, I don’t know anyone who would suggest that God’s power is somehow limited by the fact that God can’t make 2 + 2 equal 1. As for whether God can pick up a pebble because God doesn’t have a body, I’m not sure that this is a major concern. After all, Yoda can lift an X-wing with his mind. So, whether God has a body or not doesn’t seem to be a matter of concern. Now, as for whether God can die or sin, most of us would agree that God is immortal and that by definition of God’s character, God does not sin (though there are plenty of stories in the Bible that suggest that God sometimes does things we would find objectionable). This would be true whatever our view of God’s level of power.  Sometimes Tom appeals to Process philosophy to support his position, but to what degree do we give authority to a Process philosopher such as Charles Hartshorne? Why is he more reputable than let’s say Karl Barth or even Thomas Aquinas? Again, I’m not defending omnipotence, I’m just not sure that the chapter will answer everyone’s questions. Again, I found some of the “qualifications” rather silly. Thus, I found this to be the weakest chapter in the book.

                Now, as to whether evil ends omnipotence (chapter 3), this is where theodicy really comes into play. The challenge that is posed by evil relates to how one can reconcile the confession that God loves all of creation and divine omnipotence. If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why doesn’t God put an end to evil? Some will answer this conundrum by suggesting that God grants us free will, but that doesn’t work well for victims. We can leave this to the realm of mystery, but as noted above, Tom wants to eliminate appeals to mystery (I'm more comfortable with mystery and inconsistency than is Tom). Whether the existence of evil is the death of omnipotence is to be decided by each of us. For Tom, it is the death of omnipotence. Others may keep searching for an answer that doesn’t reduce God’s power as much as Tom suggests in the book.

                Perhaps my contrarian response is rooted in my wish that Tom had spent less space deconstructing omnipotence and more space defining his alternative—amipotence. I have noticed a trend among some open and relational folks to focus on trying to elevate their perspective over contrasting views, often pointing to the weakest arguments of their “opponents” or ignoring context. Sometimes that can be a bit tendentious. I wonder if that is because many in this camp (and I have included myself in this camp) are ex-evangelicals who bring a degree of fundamentalist black-and-white thinking into this new space. While it is sometimes necessary to contrast one’s position with the alternative, we should always compare/contrast our best with the other’s best. But, if possible, it’s best, in my estimation, to focus on the benefits of the position one is advocating for.

                This caveat leads me to the final chapter in the book The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence. This is Tom’s alternative to omnipotence. We might start with the pronunciation of this word. To get a sense of how to say the word, we can break it down into syllables: a-mi-po-tence (the “I” is a short “I”). So, it sounds a lot like omnipotence. Now this is a “neologism.” That is, this is a new word that Tom has coined to describe his alternative. Amipotence simply means the “power of love.” I'm not sure we need a new word, but it does describe what Tom is putting forward for our consideration. As for me, I'm perfectly content using the Hebrew word hesed, which can be translated as "steadfast love." Why not just go biblical and confess that the steadfast love of God endures forever and let that be the definition of God’s power? When I got to this chapter, I wanted more definition, especially more engagement with biblical concepts and ideas. It appears that Tom wants to write for a broader audience than the typical Christian audience, which is why he believes that amipotence fits Jewish and Muslim perspectives as well as Christian ones. That being said, I wished he had engaged more with Jesus. I also might have wished for Tom to engage more with how this might work with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He does acknowledge the possibility that love might exist in an intratrinitarian fashion, but his discussion is largely limited to footnotes. It is clear both from recent books, and personal interaction, that Tom isn’t as interested in discussions of the Trinity as I and others might be.

                Tom has spent much of his career reflecting on love. He appeals to love in his definitions of the nature of God and offers guidance as to how love might define our relationships with one another. For the most part, I have found his work to be extremely helpful in my own theological reflections. I locate myself within the Open and Relational Community, though I keep my feet in other spaces as well. That may color my perspective on The Death of Omnipotence and Birthof Amipotence. I expect that the book will prove especially attractive to those with a more Process orientation, which it appears to me that Tom has been either moving into or is more comfortable revealing his affinity to that perspective. I’m less enamored with Process, though I find aspects intriguing. While I hope that the book will give folks who struggle to embrace God amid the continuing presence of evil, I expect that it won’t satisfy those who want God to be a bit more active and perhaps exercise more sovereignty than the God that is being revealed here. I also wonder if this portrayal of God will attract those who have already given up on God. Is this God worth embracing? Nevertheless, I expect that there will be those who don’t embrace everything in the book but find here a pathway to something different than an all-powerful God who seems indifferent to their plight.  Like Tom, I’ve been mulling over some of these same questions, which will remain with us for the near future at least (for some of my own thinking on these concerns see my book Speaking of God: An Introductory Conversation About How Christians Talk About God, Energion Publications, 2023). 

        So, let’s keep the conversation going about the relationship between love and divine power. Whether The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence has dealt omnipotence a death blow remains to be seen. As for this new term, amipotence, the concept isn't new. So why a new term? As we discuss these questions, may we all agree that God is love and that whatever power that God may have or exercise is constrained by that love. More importantly, may we live lives of love of God and neighbor, knowing that God's steadfast love endures forever.