Thomas Jay Oord - Barbie and Our Purpose

 

Barbie Main Trailer

by Warner Bros. Pictures

May 25, 2023

Billie Eilish - What Was I Made For? 

(Official Music Video)

by Billie Eilish

* * * * * * * *

Barbie and Our Purpose

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

February 25th, 2024

Tripp Fuller and I have written a book called God After Deconstruction. It will be available in April 2024.

Among the issues we discuss is how to think about purpose after the traditional God is deconstructed. Here’s an excerpt from the book, which builds on the Barbie movie.

What Was I Made For?

In the blockbuster movie Barbie, we find the world-renown doll and diverse friends in roles their maker has chosen. The toys dance and sing, party, and live according to the determinations of their manufacturer, Mattel.

In a moment of questioning, however, Barbie ponders life beyond what has been decided for her. She wonders what the real world might be like. So she visits Weird Barbie and is presented with a choice: go “back to the way your life was” or “know the truth about the universe.”

At first, Barbie chooses what’s safe and familiar: Barbie Land. “I’m not Adventure Barbie,” she explains, “I’m Stereotypical Barbie.”

With a little coaxing, she opts to learn the truth. So she departs Barbie Land for an adventure. To her delight, Barbie finds the real world thrilling; her newfound autonomy gives joy. But this liberation raises questions about who she is, the customs of her past, and the desires of her friends, especially Ken. Barbie realizes that the restrictions of the status quo, especially patriarchy, cause harm.

Near the end of the movie, Barbie talks with corporate leaders at Mattel. In a conversation with a CEO, Barbie admits to being confused: “I’m not really sure where I belong anymore.” Billie Eilish expresses this angst beautifully in the Grammy Award-winning song written for the movie: “What Was I Made For?”

Barbie then interacts with Ruth, the woman who originally imagined her as a doll for her daughter. “I want to be part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that’s made,” Barbie says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea itself.”

“You don’t need my permission,” Ruth replies.

“But you’re The Creator,” says Barbie. “You control me.”

“Ha!” says Ruth. “I can’t control you any more than I could control my own daughter!”

God’s Role in Purpose and Meaning

After the God of traditional theology is deconstructed, questions arise: What is our purpose? Does life have meaning? What’s the point?

The God of traditional theology is like the patriarchy at Mattel… but even more controlling. This deity predetermines the actions of all, so we’re dolls playing predestined roles. Rather than agents with autonomy, we dance and sing, enjoy and suffer, bleed and die according to our Maker’s will.

When God is imagined as one who foreordains and/or foreknows, questions about purpose and meaning have simple answers. Life’s purpose is whatever God determines, and it means whatever God decides. When God is in control, it all makes sense…

at least at first.

Like Barbie, however, we who deconstruct begin to imagine life outside systems that confine us. We realize we make free actual choices, and our lives matter. So we embark on an adventure to discover a world beyond what’s expected. We grow.

Once we — like Barbie — recognize our autonomy, it becomes difficult to imagine a controlling God. When we suffer needlessly or encounter evil in the world, we begin to doubt God has a pre-selected blueprint. Unjust systems make us wonder about an omnipotent God’s purposes; pointless pain causes us to question whether life has ultimate meaning. We encounter the restrictions of controlling systems and the restricting gods required to manage them.

The Barbie movie answers these questions by saying the purpose of life is in the living of it. The movie’s last moments show Barbie imagining experiences of various types. The message seems to be that we find meaning in whatever happens. That has a measure of truth, but isn’t there something more?

How might we think about God, purpose, and meaning after traditional theology?

Thomas Jay Oord: Reviewing "The Deconstruction of Christianity"

Reviewing “The Deconstruction of

Christianity”

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord   |   February 16th, 2024

In their book The Deconstruction of Christianity, Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett help readers “stand your ground and respond with clarity and confidence” in the face of deconstruction.

In what follows, I review the book. Overall, I find it unhelpful. But there are a few aspects I like.

Apostasy

The book starts on a sour note: the first word is “apostasy.” Readers like me will immediately wonder if this book aims to help those asking hard questions or defend the Christian faith against the “heretics.” In many ways, it opts for the second. The opening pages are not welcoming.

Childers and Barnett didn’t write this book for questioning people who are deconstructing. It’s for the friends and family of deconstructors. It’s “primarily written for Christians who are experiencing deconstruction from the outside.” The authors’ goal is to “walk you through what deconstruction is and how it works, and give you practical advice on how to relate with friends and loved ones going through it.” (6)

The authors acknowledge some people see deconstruction as compatible with Christianity. Childers and Barnett disagree. “Deconstruction is as old as humanity itself,” they say. “It began with Satan—the father of faith deconstruction—and continues today.” (47 ) In fact, “people have been abandoning the standard of God’s Word and engaging in a process of rethinking—and often abandoning—their faith since the beginning.” (61)

It’s Ultimately About Authority

This book has many problems, and I’ll list some later. As I see it, the fundamental problems are two:

1. The authors want a fully trustworthy authority (the Bible).

2. The authors think Christians must choose between the Bible as that authority and the authority of the individual person.

“The heart of the deconstruction explosion is a rejection of biblical authority,” say Childers and Barnett bluntly. (26) The Bible provides truths that the method of deconstruction and deconstructors abandon.

Appealing to the Bible as the only trustworthy authority won’t convince those who deconstruct, of course. Most (rightly) doubt that the Bible is fully reliable, saying it is neither inerrant nor infallible. Childers and Barnett dismiss this doubt, in part, by saying deconstructors have shallow faith, are rebellious, fight on the wrong side of a spiritual battle, follow culture instead of Christ, are captive to Satan, get seduced by vain philosophy, are broken and sinful, and so on (see chapter 10 and elsewhere).

At least in this book, the authors don’t address realities that undermine belief in the absolute authority of the Bible. They don’t address people like me and others who 1) know the many errors and discrepancies in scripture, 2) know the original languages and differences between the oldest known biblical manuscripts, and 3) know that biblical passages receive a wide variety of plausible interpretations.

Objective vs. Subjective Truth?

Childers and Barnett believe Christians face an either/or choice when it comes to truth. They can 1) place their trust in the Bible, which is an external authority. Or 2) trust themselves and their own subjectivity.

The Bible “communicates objective truth that isn’t meant to be interpreted subjectively,” the authors claim (34). In the deconstruction movement, “biblical interpretation becomes subjective.” (35) “Deconstruction isn’t just about questioning beliefs,” they say, “it’s about rejecting Scripture as the source of objective truth and authority.” (121) Deconstructors reject God’s Word.

This objective vs. subjective scheme, however, makes little sense. Long before “deconstruction” was a word in the academy or popular culture, people realized no one has a fully objective, unbiased, and uninfluenced perspective. Histories, cultures, perspectives, preferences, biology, and feelings influence those who read the Bible. Because personal subjectivity inevitably influences our interpretations, good and wise people interpret scripture in ways.

Sometimes those in the deconstruction community encourage people to “make up their own minds,” instead of following a church, pastor, or influencer. But this doesn’t mean people are entirely free of influence from others. We’re always affected by forces, factors, ideas, and actors external to ourselves. Objective causes influence our subjectivity; interpretations have external influences.

People like Jacques Derrida are right when they say that words—including biblical words — have no timeless and absolute meaning. But you don’t have to be a philosopher to know this: just look at how many biblical translations and interpretations are present today and throughout history. A more accurate view says objective factors outside ourselves always affect our subjectivity. And one of those factors may or may not be the Bible.

Authoritative Mindset

Two overarching issues came repeatedly to mind as I read The Deconstruction of Christianity. The first has to do with what in cognitive science is called the “Authoritative” mindset. Childers and Barnett write from it, and their frequent appeals to biblical authority illustrate this.

Cognitive sciences describe three primary mindsets among people at least in the West: Authoritative, Nurturant, and Permissive. Evangelicals like Childers and Barnett typically operate from the Authoritative mindset. They need authorities more than most people. So Authoritatives put their confidence in a book (Bible), group (church or denomination), leader (pastor), government (USA), or person (Donald Trump). They also prize obedience, order, certainty, hierarchies, coercion, and more.

As I read The Deconstruction of Christianity, I found oodles of evidence that Childers and Barnett operate from an Authoritative mindset. Deconstruction annoys them because it does not. In God After Deconstruction (coming out in April 2024), Tripp Fuller and I argue that the Nurturant mindset better reflects the message of Jesus. Sociological studies show that those with a Nurturant mindset are healthier in various ways than those with Authoritative mindsets. They also live well without the strong need for external authorities.

Complexity Stage

The second theme continually coming to my mind as I read Childers and Barnett is what many call the “stages of faith.” Brian McLaren offers a rubric with four stages and names them “simplicity,” “complexity,” “perplexity,” and “harmony.”

Childers and Barnett fit nicely in the complexity stage. Like simplicity people, they seek clear categories of black and white, us and them, in and out, right and wrong. The authors make strong distinctions between Christ vs. the world, church vs. culture, and scriptural truth vs. societal opinions. But unlike simplicity people, Childers and Barnett offer sophisticated versions of these distinctions, realizing there must be some nuance.

Those who deconstruct fit in either the perplexity or harmony stages of faith. The connection between deconstruction and perplexity will be obvious. But even in the harmony stage, the methods of deconstruction are not abandoned. Harmony people recognize the falsity of strict binaries, in part, because they cannot capture well the God present to and revealing in all creation.

Should Christians Question?

Childers and Barnett repeatedly tell their readers that questioning is normal and has always been part of the Christian faith. Christians should ask questions about the Bible, God, and life. Test the Bible, they say, and the church.

But the questioning Childers and Barnett advocate can’t get too radical. We should not question the ultimate authority: “God’s Word” (or what is better called “Christian scripture”). Questioning harms if it undermines this ultimate standard for truth. Some who ask questions are really just looking for ways to exit the faith.

Although deconstruction is bad, reformation is good. According to the authors, “reformation is the process of correcting mistaken beliefs to make them align with Scripture.” (125) Notice the priority of the Bible again. The message: question… but don’t abandon scripture.

To return to McLaren’s faith formation language, Childers and Barnett seem to encourage questioning if it moves the Christian from a simplistic faith to a complex one. But questioning that might move the person toward perplexity and harmony goes too far. Such questioning might, and usually does, undermine trust in the Bible as fully trustworthy. And it might lead people to doubt doctrines the authors consider essential, even the existence of God.

To illustrate his willingness to entertain tough questions, Tim Barnett briefly brings up the problem of evil. The authors earlier (rightly) noted that questions about evil are the primary reasons people deconstruct. When asked why God doesn’t stop evil, Barnett says, “I don’t know.” He doesn’t have an answer to why God sometimes permits evil, but other times intervenes. He knows this isn’t satisfying, but he’s trying to be honest.

I wonder why the Bible—Barnett’s authoritative source and “God’s Word”—doesn’t provide an answer to the problem of evil that satisfies him. To the #1 question asked by people who deconstruct, why doesn’t the alleged ultimate authority offer a satisfying answer? Barnett thinks the Bible’s clear about issues like penal substitutionary atonement, although that issue keeps far fewer people up at night.

Despite the encouragement to ask some questions, The Deconstruction of Christianity claims that those who deconstruct are deceived, rebellious, disingenuous, etc. See the list above. This encouragement rings hollow.

Reasons to Deconstruct

In the first half of the book, Childers and Barnett address reasons people deconstruct. They don’t offer answers to these issues. And they give mixed messages.

At one point, the authors claim that “most people don’t make a conscious choice to enter into deconstruction.” This fits the experience of most people I know. The authors say that deconstruction is “often triggered by a crisis that initiates the process. It’s typically not something people choose. In many cases, it happens to them.” (78) Elsewhere, however, the authors blame deconstruction on “rebellion against God” (193).

Among the reasons people deconstruct, the authors list suffering, doubt, politics, purity culture, the Bible, toxic theology, and abuse. They don’t offer rejoinders for these reasons. And they say that people of shallow faith struggle with them. The message seems to be those who truly trust the Bible can handle issues that might tempt other people to deconstruct.

Childers and Barnett insist that abuse and injustice are not reflections of Christian doctrines. “There certainly are valid examples of abuse in the church, such as sexual assault and abuses of power,” they say. “But many deconstructionists go further, saying that some historic orthodox teachings of Christianity—such as penal substitutionary atonement, the doctrine of hell, and complementarianism—are abusive by nature.” (96)

Although the authors preach the importance of good theology, they will not admit that some of what they consider “historic orthodox teachings” leads people to deconstruct.

Toxic Theology?

In a chapter titled “Toxic,” Childers and Barnett further address the claim that traditional Christian practices and doctrines sometimes harm. These claims about harm draw primarily from research in sociology and history, they say, rather than Scripture.

Beth Allison Barr’s book The Making of Biblical Womanhood garners the authors’ attention. Barr argues that Christian views have often harmed women and restricted them from some roles. Childers and Barnett also cite Kristin Kobes DuMez’s work on Christian nationalism as an example of history and sociology trumping theology.

The authors say arguments like Barr’s and Kobes DuMez’s begin by identifying a problem in society. Then they show how the church endorsed or allowed this problem. Finally, they argue that theology (especially white evangelical theology) should be rejected or reimagined.

Because Barr and Kobes DuMez address women’s issues, I was eager to see how Childers and Barnett would respond. I assumed the authors would give an argument for complementarity. Instead, they say, “The extent to which women can take part in church leadership roles has been hotly debated among faithful Christians for millennia. The point… is not to settle the correct biblical teaching on the topic.” Instead, they argue that history and sociology cannot “discover true doctrines and rule out harmful, false ones.” (150)

To settle disputes about the role of women and how they’ve been harmed, say the authors, we need “an objective standard to appeal to. This requires the Bible.” They add that “while neither of the authors of this book would fault someone for coming to an honest position on biblical grounds regarding the egalitarian vs. complementarian debate, we would fault someone for rejecting complementarianism simply because they didn’t like where those Bible passages lead.” (150)

Not the Bible Alone

In their discussion of Barr and DuMez, Childers and Barnett are blind to the problem they’ve created.

If “honest” people can come to differing views about gender roles while studying the “objective standard” of the Bible, that standard isn’t the clear authority needed to decide this issue. Childers and Barnett seem to admit that the Bible is open to more than one legitimate interpretation of what it says about women. This means other standards are needed.

Barr, Kobes DuMez, and others cite sociological, historical, psychological, and even medical data as offering apparent fruits of various Christian practices and doctrines. They’re pondering the consequences of particular beliefs and practices and making strong cases that some produce bad fruit. And because the Bible can be interpreted in various ways, we need other sources for deciding which beliefs and practices are healthy or true and which are not.

The role of women is just one among many issues in which the Bible cannot be the sole resource for Christian doctrines and practices. The need for multiple sources applies also to questions of sexuality.

In fact, I laughed out loud when I read the “Homophobia” section of the book. Childers and Barnett say that Scripture describes sexual immorality as any act of sex other than “between one man and one woman in the context of marriage.” This is laughable! Don’t they know about Solomon’s wives? Or are only some passages of the Bible authoritative on this issue? I laughed again when they wrote, “It’s not just a few so-called ‘clobber’ passages that teach this. It’s the narrative of Scripture cover to cover.” (37) What Bible are they reading?

What I Liked

There wasn’t much I liked in this book. But here are some in bullet form:

* I liked the authors’ empathy for family and friends of those who deconstruct. Of course, I think the lion’s share of empathy should go to deconstructors. The authors express relatively little of that compared to criticisms. But Childers and Barnett rightly note the anguish that parents and friends of those who deconstruct sometimes endure. It’s painful to teach a child your cherished beliefs, only to have that child call them harmful. To illustrate this point, Childers and Barnett write, “When deconstruction leads to a rejection of faith, that can feel like a death both to the one deconstructing and to their loved ones.” (66) They’re right.

* The authors quoted books and social media from some of the leading voices in deconstruction. Sometimes critics ignore what their opponents actually say. While Childers and Barnett made some missteps, I thought they were pretty good overall. I even found a few sources for the book Tripp and I are writing!

* The authors believe ideas matter. Like me, they think theology makes a difference, because our views of reality make a difference. While I disagree radically with many of their theological claims, I appreciate their dedication to exploring ideas, their truth and impact. Theology is more than sociology.

* I think critical race theory and its reflection on power should be one tool in social analysis. I affirm it. But I agree with the authors that sometimes those who use critical race theory put all their cards on issues of power without addressing issues of truth. Most times, the two overlap. But I think both must be addressed.

Conclusion

My notes on this book extend far beyond what I have written here. Although I disagree fundamentally with the authors and disagree on most points of the book, I’m glad I read it.

This book also helped with writing the book Tripp Fuller and I are doing called, God After Deconstruction. If these issues interest you, I hope you consider buying a copy when it comes in April 2024. And here’s a graphic for the upcoming Denver conference on the subject.

R.E. Slater - Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Is It Near or Far? Controlling or Uncontrolling? Fully Knowledgeable

or Processually Affected in It's Divine Knowledge, Power, and Presence?

by R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

A Fresh Perspective of Divine Omnipotence

When thinking of a Divine God with Divine Power it perhaps is better think in terms of Divine Love....

Shocking?

Perhaps.

But certainly much more in line with a "biblical" God than if casting Divinity in terms of non-Loving power and control. (aka, church-like dominionism with its legalisms, rites, and beliefs).

For a process theologian when speaking of God we prefer to speak of a God who is loving at all times rather than some times... or maybe not at all.

Too, if divine Sovereignty were cast in terms of a divinely Loving God at all times than the traditional terms of power and control must also be altered to better reflect a loving God.

As example, for the traditional language of omnipotence let's recast it in terms of "amnipotence" - that is, LOVING power (see Oord's articles below).

Let's also do the same with the very unhealthy word "control" which Christians love to sing about and speak to when praising God's omniscient determination of our own affairs and the world's.

A process theologian will do away with words like "divine control" altogether when speaking to a divinely-loving sovereignty within processual categories of divine processual indeterminancy. By which we mean, that creation, if it were to follow it's inherently- divine "Imago Dei" of God birthed within it (and yes, even today does this divine birth continue - as versus just one time "in Adam" ala Paul's voluminous characterization of Adam's sin in the book of Romans).

And further, because divine Love created creation in God's Image (Imago Dei) it also was created by Love (and not by divine fiat) with intermittant freewill.

That is, creational freewill agency - just like our own freewill agency - is fraught between generative, or valuative, good and sin and evil, which are not generatively good or valuative of someone or something outside itself.

A Processual Divinity Takes on a

New Divine Character and Attributes...

Hence, process theology generally teaches of a loving and uncontrolling (or noncontrolling) divine Sovereignty which, though genuinely powerful is genuinely loving and noncontrolling per the processual metaphysics found throughout the universe's "cosmic being".

Which cosmic being may also give rise to someone or something that isn't just "IS," in itself, but also "BECOMING" more than itself in itself.

So when when describing God as a processual God a process metaphysician (or metatheologian?) will say that God is not only complete in himself but also has the capacity in God's Godness of transcendence to be 100% present and immanent to creation's "processual" being. Which is to say that God in God's relationship with creation will "grow" and "become" with creation as it becomes.

When saying this a process theology is stating that neither party is static but continually evolving in relationship to itself and with creation as a whole. And that an IMMANENT God - in God's timeful existence - processually evolves with our own existence. An existence which, unlike God's divine Self, may also devolve in it's processually timeful existence.

Take note: "God qua God is complete." God is infinitely Becomed or Evolved. But in God's processual relationship with an evolving or devolving freewill and indeterminant creation, God is continually processing - or urging - that creation to become what it inherently is in itself re its Divine Imago; than to lean into the dark side of its unloving, devolving freewill which is as "uncontrollable" as its upside potential is.

Processual divine Sovereignty then speaks to an evolving/devolving creation which is and may become more than it is or may become less than it is.... And further, it is by God's redemptive power imbued into creation (as depicted by God's atoning redemption) that a freewilled, indeterminant creation may be released from its devolvement towards a processually good and generatively valuative part of the creational whole when partnering with salvific God of creation.

Thus and thus, the classical church teachings re divine omnipotence, omniscience, even omnipresence, when recast processually completely change the nuances of a truly divine loving sovereignty. And when done, show us a divine God who is much more who God is than our own images of God cast into our own religious images however "Christian" or "biblical" they claim to be. Let's read below Thomas Oord's thoughts on a few of these Christianized aspects of God....

Blessings & Merry Christmas!

R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

https://open.spotify.com/episode/55JiRaUOL47X3mmgqZggOu

Part 1

The Death of Omnipotence

(and Birth of Amnipotence)

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-death-of-omnipotence

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 16th, 2022

I’m writing a new book. My tentative title is “The Death of Omnipotence… and Birth of Amipotence.”

As the title suggests, I’ll argue that God is not omnipotent. But instead of simply saying, “God can’t do…,” I’m also proposing a view of divine power I think is more biblically supported, philosophically coherent, and experientially justified. I call it “amipotence.” (Here’s a 3-minute ORTShort describing the word.)

Here’s how I plan to start the book…

THERE’S NOTHING THAT HE CANNOT DO?

“My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do.”[1] These lines from a children’s song give voice to what many people believe: God can do anything.

Other song lyrics proclaim the glory of an all-powerful God. In his Messiah concerto, George Frideric Handel’s oft-repeated lines ring out:

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah![2]

Contemporary worship choruses promote omnipotence, declaring a sovereign God cannot be thwarted nor the divine will be frustrated. It’s common for believers, enraptured in praise, to lift their voices to the One they call “almighty” and proclaim, “our God reigns!”

OMNIPOTENCE

“Omnipotence” expresses in formal language the “God can do anything” view. A God with all (omni) power (potent) apparently can do anything we imagine and more. Augustine made this connection, saying the omnipotent God is “He who can do all things.”[3]

In some theologies, God actually exerts all power and is the cause of everything; call this “theological determinism” or “monergism.” In others, God could do everything but chooses not to. God so conceived controls from time to time but generally opts to allow creatures to exert power; call this view “voluntary divine self-limitation.”[4]

Among the attributes theists ascribe to God, omnipotence is likely best known. For many, it’s a placeholder for God – “the Omnipotent.” Although distinctions can be made, the term is often thought synonymous with other words and phrases describing divine power: “sovereign,” “all-powerful,” and “almighty.”[5] These describe what many think necessary of a being worthy of worship: unlimited power.

Christian creeds refer to God’s almightiness. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” begins the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed starts similarly: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” The Westminster Confession speaks of a God who, in “sovereign” or “almighty” activity, saw fit to “ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

THREE MEANINGS

Theists espouse various meanings of omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. In this book, I address three common among scholars and laity. To say God is omnipotent typically means at least one of the following:

1. God exerts all power.

2. God can do absolutely anything.

3. God can control others or circumstances.[6]

Amazon

Some theists affirm one or two meanings but not all. Some reject the idea God exerts all power, for instance, but believe God can control others. Others say God can do anything but also say God doesn’t always control creatures. Many claim God can singlehandedly determine outcomes but cannot do what is illogical or self-contradictory. And it’s common for believers to say God is omnipotent but appeal to mystery when vexing questions arise.

CONCLUSION

I’d love to hear your questions, suggestions, and thoughts. Now that you know the general aim of the book, what issues should I be sure to address?

(I explain amipotence a bit in my book, Pluriform Love. Also, see this essay from Jay McDaniel.)

[1] Ruth Harms Calkin, “My God is so Big” (Permission to quote granted from Nuggets of Truth Publishing).

[2] Handel seems to be drawing from Revelation 19:6, which in Latin and in the King James Version of scripture is translated “omnipotent” but in most contemporary biblical translations is rendered “almighty.”

[3] Augustine, De Trinitate, IV 20, 27 (CChr.SL), 50, 197: “Quis est autem omnipotens, nisi qui omnia potest.” Despite this claim, Augustine also notes a number of things God cannot do.

[4] Theologians have explored the distinction between God’s potential power and the actual expression of divine power. See, for instance, Ian Robert Richardson, “Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Question of ‘Whether the omnipotence of God should be considered as potentia ordinata or potentia absoluta?” Doctoral Dissertation (King’s College London, 2002), 17.

[5] In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in the senses. God is 1) the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) the source of might for all. Gijsbert Van Den Brink argues for “almightiness” over omnipotence in Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[6] By “control,” I mean acting as the sufficient cause of some creature, circumstance, or event. To describe such control, I use phrases like “singlehandedly decide outcomes,” “unilaterally determine,” or others that depict God as the sole cause. I will argue that God never has controlled and, in fact, cannot control others.

* * * * * * * *

Part 2

Omnipotence Not in Scripture

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/omnipotence-not-in-scripture

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 27th, 2022

I’m currently writing a book that rejects the doctrine of divine omnipotence. I’ll suggest a replacement I call divine amipotence – the power of love. I introduced the writing project in this previous blog essay.

One chapter in my book addresses God’s power described in what Christians call the Old and New Testaments. I’ll argue that omnipotence — even the Hebrew and Greek words often translated “almighty” or “all-powerful” — are not in the biblical texts.

God’s Power in Scripture

Authors of sacred writ describe a God who does amazing things, including creating the heavens and the earth, enacting miracles, providing salvation, and promising ultimate victory over evil. While English translators typically avoid “omnipotence” when translating Hebrew and Greek texts, they do use “almighty.” Many people believe biblical writers portray God as all-powerful.

Given this reading of scripture, Arthur Pink puts the significance of omnipotence this way: “If God were stunted in might and had a limit to His strength, we might well despair. But seeing that He is clothed with omnipotence, no prayer is too hard for Him to answer, no need too great for Him to supply, no passion too strong for Him to subdue, no temptation too powerful for Him to deliver from, no misery too deep for him to relieve.”[1]

According to many, only an omnipotent God can save.

The Hopelessness of Omnipotence

Omnipotence does not inspire hope in everyone, however. It leads many to despair and unbelief. To those who suffer, a God who can singlehandedly liberate seems asleep. Or this God doesn’t care enough to rescue the hurting from horrors and holocausts. Fervent prayers for healing go unanswered; cries for help from the sexually abused elicit few godly rescues.

Consequently, many people have no desire to live forever with a deity who allows evil now. An almighty God isn’t trustworthy.

I will argue that Christian scripture does not support omnipotence, at least as understood in the three ways I’ve identified. God doesn’t have all power, there are many things God cannot do, and God can’t control others.

Biblical authors talk about divine action, and they consider God’s power immense. But the Hebrew and Greek words translated “almighty,” “sovereign,” and the like support neither classic nor popular understandings of God as all-powerful.

Amazon

In fact, writers of scripture acknowledge limits to divine power. And they point to the role creatures play in bringing about outcomes.

Omnipotence isn’t born of scripture.

Issues to Address?

As you see it, what words, passages, or issues should I address when talking about God’s power described in Scripture?

[1] Arthur Pink, 67.

God as "Amipotent" better Describes God than as "Omnipotent"

The Death of Omnipotence

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 7, 2022

An amipotent God is active, but not a dictator. Amipotence is receptive but not overwhelmed. God engages without domineering; is generous but not pushy; and invites without monopolizing. Amipotence is divine strength working positively at all times and places. The power of an amipotent God is the power of love. - Oord, Thomas Jay. Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas

I’m writing a new book. My tentative title is “The Death of Omnipotence… and Birth of Amipotence.”

As the title suggests, I’ll argue that God is not omnipotent. But instead of simply saying, “God can’t do…,” I’m also proposing a view of divine power I think is more biblically supported, philosophically coherent, and experientially justified. I call it “amipotence.” (Here’s a 3-minute ORTShort describing the word.)

Here’s how I plan to start the book…

THERE’S NOTHING THAT GOD CANNOT DO?

“My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do.”[1] These lines from a children’s song give voice to what many people believe: God can do anything.

Other song lyrics proclaim the glory of an all-powerful God. In his Messiah concerto, George Frideric Handel’s oft-repeated lines ring out:

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah![2]

Contemporary worship choruses promote omnipotence, declaring a sovereign God cannot be thwarted nor the divine will be frustrated. It’s common for believers, enraptured in praise, to lift their voices to the One they call “almighty” and proclaim, “our God reigns!”

OMNIPOTENCE

“Omnipotence” expresses in formal language the “God can do anything” view. A God with all (omni) power (potent) apparently can do anything we imagine and more. Augustine made this connection, saying the omnipotent God is “He who can do all things.”[3]

In some theologies, God actually exerts all power and is the cause of everything; call this “theological determinism” or “monergism.” In others, God could do everything but chooses not to. God so conceived controls from time to time but generally opts to allow creatures to exert power; call this view “voluntary divine self-limitation.”[4]

Among the attributes theists ascribe to God, omnipotence is likely best known. For many, it’s a placeholder for God – “the Omnipotent.” Although distinctions can be made, the term is often thought synonymous with other words and phrases describing divine power: “sovereign,” “all-powerful,” and “almighty.”[5]

These describe what many think necessary of a being worthy of worship: unlimited power. Christian creeds refer to God’s almightiness. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” begins the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed starts similarly: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” The Westminster Confession speaks of a God who, in “sovereign” or “almighty” activity, saw fit to “ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

Answering Divine Omnipotence with Divine Amipotence resolves questions of theodicy

THREE MEANINGS

Theists espouse various meanings of omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. In this book, I address three common among scholars and laity. To say God is omnipotent typically means at least one of the following:

1. God exerts all power.

2. God can do absolutely anything.

3. God can control others or circumstances.[6]

Some theists affirm one or two meanings but not all. Some reject the idea God exerts all power, for instance, but believe God can control others. Others say God can do anything but also say God doesn’t always control creatures. Many claim God can singlehandedly determine outcomes but cannot do what is illogical or self-contradictory. And it’s common for believers to say God is omnipotent but appeal to mystery when vexing questions arise.

CONCLUSION

I’d love to hear your questions, suggestions, and thoughts. Now that you know the general aim of the book, what issues should I be sure to address?

(I explain amipotence a bit in my book, Pluriform Love. Also, see this essay from Jay McDaniel.)

[1] Ruth Harms Calkin, “My God is so Big” (Permission to quote granted from Nuggets of Truth Publishing).

[2] Handel seems to be drawing from Revelation 19:6, which in Latin and in the King James Version of scripture is translated “omnipotent” but in most contemporary biblical translations is rendered “almighty.”

[3] Augustine, De Trinitate, IV 20, 27 (CChr.SL), 50, 197: “Quis est autem omnipotens, nisi qui omnia potest.” Despite this claim, Augustine also notes a number of things God cannot do.

[4] Theologians have explored the distinction between God’s potential power and the actual expression of divine power. See, for instance, Ian Robert Richardson, “Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Question of ‘Whether the omnipotence of God should be considered as potentia ordinata or potentia absoluta?” Doctoral Dissertation (King’s College London, 2002), 17.

[5] In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in the senses. God is 1) the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) the source of might for all. Gijsbert Van Den Brink argues for “almightiness” over omnipotence in Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[6] By “control,” I mean acting as the sufficient cause of some creature, circumstance, or event. To describe such control, I use phrases like “singlehandedly decide outcomes,” “unilaterally determine,” or others that depict God as the sole cause. I will argue that God never has controlled and, in fact, cannot control others.

* * * * * * *

 

What does Amipotence Look Like?

It looks like the human touch of a nurse.

article link

by Jay McDaniel

July 25, 2021

​

​God is neither impotent nor omnipotent but what I call “amipotent.” I coined this word by combining the Latin word for power — “potent” — with a Latin prefix for love — “ami.” From “potent” we get words like “potential” and “potency.” We find the “ami” prefix in love words like “amity,” “amigo,” and “amicable.” God’s power is the power of love: amipotence.

An amipotent God is active, but not a dictator. Amipotence is receptive but not overwhelmed. God engages without domineering; is generous but not pushy; and invites without monopolizing. Amipotence is divine strength working positively at all times and places. The power of an amipotent God is the power of love. - Oord, Thomas Jay. Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas

Thomas Oord has coined the term "amipotence" to name the infinite power of divine love The term combines the Latin word for power — “potent” — with a Latin prefix for love — “ami.”

Amipotence is a verb not a noun. It is an ongoing and endless activity, always different and yet always the same. This activity is not all-powerful in the sense of being able to prevent all tragedies, but it is all-faithful and, I believe, all-beautiful. The heart of amipotence is healing and life-giving, like love itself.

What does it look like? I think it looks like the healing power of a nurturant nurse. We do not expect nurses to make everything right, but in their human touch we find life's deepest meaning. That meaning is not that all pain can be relieved. It is that noone suffers alone and that always, even in suffering, there is a healing (a solace, a togetherness, a presence, a companionship, and a hope) that is more, much more, than whatever tears must be shed. For me, the God of whom Thomas Oord speaks is a deep Nurse in whose life the universe unfolds, moment by moment. She is - he is - it is - the Nurturing: an encircling spirit beneath, behind, beyond, and (sometimes) within the happening of all that happens

- Jay McDaniel, July 25, 2021

Theologian Keith Ward's "God of Love"

 

Pictured L to R: Peter Enns, Tripp Fuller, Adam Clark, Thomas Oord

Keith Ward and a God of Love

article link

by Thomas J. Oord

October 16th, 2022

I recently wrote a chapter for a book celebrating the work of Keith Ward. My argument is that Ward offers a metaphysics that supports both a conceptual basis for love and a basis to view God as loving.

God is Love

Keith Ward believes an adequate account of love requires an equally adequate account of God. He believes God is the chief exemplar of love and the ultimate Mind making creaturely love possible.

Keith believes a Christian description of God is “guided by the key teaching that ‘God is love.’”[1] But just about every Christian believes God loves.

The way many professional theologians conceive of God, however, does not align with love as I have defined it, as we experience it, or as described in much of sacred scripture. Keith Ward’s concept of God is different; it aligns with love so understood.

God Must Love

Unlike the voluntarist God of some theologies, Keith believes God must love. God cannot freely choose evil.[2] In fact, divine freedom is “necessarily conditioned” by love.[3] To put this in my own terms, Keith believes love comes logically prior in the divine nature to will.

We should reject theologies aligned with ancient Greek philosophical notions of a static God, says Keith. Such theologies consider God a timeless substance rather than a dynamic person. They present God as simple, immutable, and impassible too, which fails to align with the dominant biblical portrayal of God or with the personal piety of believers.[4]

Keith agrees with the majority portrayal of God in the Christian scripture, which portrays God as “a dynamic, creative, and relational reality.”[5] This dynamic God changes but is not in all ways immutable. “A general biblical account of God,” says Keith, “is more sympathetic to the view that God changes in some respects than to the view that God is completely changeless.”[6] A changing God “capable of new creative actions is more supreme than are beings that cannot be other than it is.”[7]

Open and Relational God

Keith Ward is what I call an “open and relational theologian,” because he believes God essentially experiences time analogous to how creatures experience it. God’s experience is temporal, but the divine nature does not change. Keith rejects the classic view of divine simplicity because it undermines the personal and relational aspects of God. God does not have a preordained plan that is worked out in a predetermined and precise way.[8]

A relational God suffers with and knows creatures experientially. God’s “concern for the well-being of creatures implies knowledge of their condition,” Keith says. And it implies “pity if it involves suffering, revulsion if it involves the willful causing of suffering, and action to relieve that suffering where it is possible.”

A God who simply contemplates suffering “is not truly love,” says Keith. “The one who truly loves will do something to help.”[9] God is passible, because “affected by the beauties and sufferings of the created world.”[10]

God’s Creative Love

Love compelled God to create the universe. “One who believes in the existence of God,” argues Keith, “will believe that there is an actual case of supreme goodness that has created the world for the sake of good.”[11] And God had a particular aim in creating: “that autonomous persons can come into existence,” says Keith. These creaturely persons would be able to “shape their own lives freely and creatively, and can find their fulfillment in being united to the divine in love.”[12]

In a certain sense, says Keith, God needs creation. “If God’s love is agape love, love of the other and the imperfect, then that love could not exist without a creation containing possibly imperfect creatures.” This does not mean that the universe created God, however. “Creation in no way brings God into being,” Keith says, “and it depends wholly upon God in order to exist.”[13]

Trinity?

A good number of Christian theologians affirm divine love as necessary among members of the social trinity. But Keith thinks “the idea of God as a sort of society is a bad idea.”[14] Christians should not think God is comprised of three persons, each with distinct centers of consciousness, distinct freedoms, distinct responsibilities, distinct wills, and distinct relations between one another.

This formulation of the Trinity is more tritheistic than monotheistic. Keith believes God is one; God has one mind and will. I’ve reviewed Keith’s book on the Trinity here.

The loving Creator experientially loves and relates with the created world.[15] God’s love is ad extra. “If God is a relational being characterized by love,” Keith reasons, “that relation must be to non-divine persons, and not a sort of secret self-love.”[16] 

We can talk about divine love as in some sense trinitarian, Keith says, if we identify a “threefold form of divine love – as creating finite persons, relating in love to them, and uniting them to the divine life.” This activity “is the manifestation of the supreme goodness of God as creative, self-giving, and universally inclusive love.”[17] “If God is agape love,” says Keith, “this is love of what is truly other than God, not just love of the divine beauty and self.”[18]

God and the Future

God’s “plan” for creation is not a detailed blueprint of all that will occur. God does not entirely determine or even foreknow what the future of the universe will be. But “God wills that creatures cooperate in the work to create new expressions of love and goodness,” says Keith, “and that plan can take many forms.”[19] The love plan Keith says God entertains is neither unilaterally determining nor willy nilly.

Creaturely love is derived from divine love. We “must learn to love,” says Keith, “by learning to share in the divine love.”[20] This learning provides creaturely persons with their purpose. “The highest business of life is to live well in a just and compassionate society,” Keith says, “and to see that living well consists in seeking the true, the good, and beautiful for its own sake.” It involves “realizing as fully as possible our positive human potentialities, and then working for a society and a world in which that is a real possibility for all without exception.”[21]

Love after Death

Loving creatures hope to experience even greater love after death. “For those who believe themselves to experience something of a God of love,” says Keith, “the hope of paradise is the hope of closer knowledge and love of God.”[22] But this closer knowledge and love does not come through divine fiat. God wills that persons “attain their end by their own efforts, in cooperation with the divine…” And “if finite persons are to love and realize themselves in God, there must be more to finite consciousness than the often painful and always inadequate sense of union with the divine that is apparent in ordinary lives.”[23]

This “more” is what many theists call “heaven.” Even “the hope of heaven,” says Keith, “is entailed by belief in a God of love.”[24]

Keith Ward’s theistic metaphysics provides a far more adequate account of love, creaturely and divine, than alternatives. Rather than a materialist metaphysics that denies essential elements of love, such as value, freedom, experience, agency, morality, and more, Keith’s idealistic metaphysics not only accounts for these elements but emphasizes them. Rather than a theistic metaphysics that claims God is impassible, timeless, simple, and in all ways immutable, Keith’s theistic metaphysics portrays dynamic love as the activity of a dynamic God in giving-and-receiving relations with creatures.

Keith Ward’s philosophical vision aligns with a robust account of love.

---

[1] Keith Ward, Christ and Cosmos, 86.

[2] Ibid., 167.

[3] Ibid., 165.

[4] Keith expresses this throughout his book Sharing in the Divine Nature.

[5] Ibid., 72.

[6] Ibid., 61.

[7] Ibid., 73.

[8] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 77-78.

[9] Ibid., 47.

[10] Ibid., 49.

[11] Ward, Morality, Autonomy, and God, 208.

[12] Ward, Christ and Cosmos, 231.

[13] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 74.

[14] Ward, Christ and Cosmos, x.

[15] Ibid., 72.

[16] Ibid., 182.

[17] Christ and Cosmos, 62.

[18] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 77.

[19] Ibid., 77-78.

[20] Ward, Morality, Autonomy, and God, 202.

[21] Ibid., 215.

[22] Ibid., 207.

[23] Ibid., 192.

[24] Ibid., 207.