What do you think?
Rate this book
The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence
Omnipotence is dead.
At least it should be. It has no biblical support. And it dies a death of a thousand qualifications in philosophy.
Those harmed and hurting wonder why an omnipotent God doesn't prevent their pointless pain. The problem of evil buries omnipotence six feet under.
But the death of omnipotence is not the death of God.
In this ground-breaking book, best-selling and award-winning author Thomas Jay Oord explains why omnipotence should be rejected. But Oord offers a amipotence, the power of uncontrolling love.
If we think love shapes and guides God's power, we make better sense of life. And better sense of the Bible. Amipotence explains why God doesn't prevent genuine evil and overcomes other obstacles to belief. An amipotent Spirit empowers all that is loving, true, beautiful, and good.
No book makes a bolder but more needed argument for why God is not all-powerful. Those who care about love, scripture, and logic find what they've been looking for.
Get a copy of The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence !
"Omnipotence has long been considered a basic, non-negotiable, characteristic of God. But is it biblical? And does it push us toward theological landmines that blow up faith? In this book, Oord, with his typical gentle candor, lays out the complex issues in clear and readable chunks. In the end, Oord points to the beauty and comfort of a God who is uncontrolling love."
- Peter Enns, professor of biblical studies at Eastern University, author of Curveball
"Thomas Jay Oord challenges one of the most fundamental attributes of God—omnipotence. He discloses that a narrow view of God as ‘Almighty’ is neither biblical nor adequately describes the God of Jesus Christ. Oord offers a new view of God as ‘amipotent.’ The power of God is the power of love, and the power of unconditional love is our strength. Oord has made an important contribution to restoring the biblical God, a God who is ever faithful in love, not a power over us but the power beneath our wings."
- Ilia Delio, OSF, Josephine C. Connelly Endowed Chair in Theology, Villanova University
"Omnipotence is widely believed to be one of the most important attributes of God. In this book, Thomas Jay Oord proposes a highly original and thought-provoking instead of omnipotent, God should be considered ‘amipotent.’ This is an important book which can radically change the way we approach central problems in philosophy of religion and philosophical theology."
- Yujin Nagasawa , H. G. Wood Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, University of Birmingham
"Finally God’s love has been saved from God’s control—faithfully, definitively, attractively! In this vibrantly accessible work, Thomas Jay Oord puts to rest the demoralizing, incoherent, and by the way nonbiblical notion of controlling omnipotence, used to justify endless injustice. In its stead, he unleashes ‘amipotence’— code for the power of love. Its time has preach it, teach it, live it!"
- Catherine Keller , Drew Theological School, and Author of Political Theology of Love
"This book provides a provocative argument that cannot be easily dismissed. This is the kind of nuance that contemporary debates over models of God need to consider."
- R.T. Mullins, Professor of Philosophical Theology, University of Lucerne
"Oord charts a path to theological freedom from the tyranny of an omnipotent God. This book is theology at its grounded in scripture, rooted in love, and engaged with brilliant and spirit-filled minds. If you have found yourself (rightfully!) unable to accept the horrifying implications of omnipotence but struggle to conceive of a God worth calling “God” ... good news! This is the book for you."
- Sarah Lane Ritchie, Science & Religion Scholar
At least it should be. It has no biblical support. And it dies a death of a thousand qualifications in philosophy.
Those harmed and hurting wonder why an omnipotent God doesn't prevent their pointless pain. The problem of evil buries omnipotence six feet under.
But the death of omnipotence is not the death of God.
In this ground-breaking book, best-selling and award-winning author Thomas Jay Oord explains why omnipotence should be rejected. But Oord offers a amipotence, the power of uncontrolling love.
If we think love shapes and guides God's power, we make better sense of life. And better sense of the Bible. Amipotence explains why God doesn't prevent genuine evil and overcomes other obstacles to belief. An amipotent Spirit empowers all that is loving, true, beautiful, and good.
No book makes a bolder but more needed argument for why God is not all-powerful. Those who care about love, scripture, and logic find what they've been looking for.
Get a copy of The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence !
"Omnipotence has long been considered a basic, non-negotiable, characteristic of God. But is it biblical? And does it push us toward theological landmines that blow up faith? In this book, Oord, with his typical gentle candor, lays out the complex issues in clear and readable chunks. In the end, Oord points to the beauty and comfort of a God who is uncontrolling love."
- Peter Enns, professor of biblical studies at Eastern University, author of Curveball
"Thomas Jay Oord challenges one of the most fundamental attributes of God—omnipotence. He discloses that a narrow view of God as ‘Almighty’ is neither biblical nor adequately describes the God of Jesus Christ. Oord offers a new view of God as ‘amipotent.’ The power of God is the power of love, and the power of unconditional love is our strength. Oord has made an important contribution to restoring the biblical God, a God who is ever faithful in love, not a power over us but the power beneath our wings."
- Ilia Delio, OSF, Josephine C. Connelly Endowed Chair in Theology, Villanova University
"Omnipotence is widely believed to be one of the most important attributes of God. In this book, Thomas Jay Oord proposes a highly original and thought-provoking instead of omnipotent, God should be considered ‘amipotent.’ This is an important book which can radically change the way we approach central problems in philosophy of religion and philosophical theology."
- Yujin Nagasawa , H. G. Wood Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, University of Birmingham
"Finally God’s love has been saved from God’s control—faithfully, definitively, attractively! In this vibrantly accessible work, Thomas Jay Oord puts to rest the demoralizing, incoherent, and by the way nonbiblical notion of controlling omnipotence, used to justify endless injustice. In its stead, he unleashes ‘amipotence’— code for the power of love. Its time has preach it, teach it, live it!"
- Catherine Keller , Drew Theological School, and Author of Political Theology of Love
"This book provides a provocative argument that cannot be easily dismissed. This is the kind of nuance that contemporary debates over models of God need to consider."
- R.T. Mullins, Professor of Philosophical Theology, University of Lucerne
"Oord charts a path to theological freedom from the tyranny of an omnipotent God. This book is theology at its grounded in scripture, rooted in love, and engaged with brilliant and spirit-filled minds. If you have found yourself (rightfully!) unable to accept the horrifying implications of omnipotence but struggle to conceive of a God worth calling “God” ... good news! This is the book for you."
- Sarah Lane Ritchie, Science & Religion Scholar
172 pages, Paperback
Published April 5, 2023
37 people are currently reading
117 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
January 24, 2024
I suspect that arguments about God's qualities are projections of our own dreams, but I like how Oord argues and projects. Also, I agree that it's important what people ascribe to God. I enjoyed Oord's rational, historically analytical way of discussing that issue, often using clear, almost unforgettable lines such as "God permits evil. Evil ends omnipotence."
Oord examines how "omnipotence" grew widely accepted as a quality of God, largely through inaccurate translations from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin. He considers the logical, practical, and political implications of viewing God as an ultimate ruler who controls everything that happens. In this discussion, Oord seems to subject himself to the great religious question of "If I was God, what would I wish to be like?" And instead of regarding "omnipotence" as the ultimate divine quality, he proposes "amipotence" (which is something like "the power of love"). I suppose that too is a projection or a dream, but I like the implications Oord explores.
Oord examines how "omnipotence" grew widely accepted as a quality of God, largely through inaccurate translations from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin. He considers the logical, practical, and political implications of viewing God as an ultimate ruler who controls everything that happens. In this discussion, Oord seems to subject himself to the great religious question of "If I was God, what would I wish to be like?" And instead of regarding "omnipotence" as the ultimate divine quality, he proposes "amipotence" (which is something like "the power of love"). I suppose that too is a projection or a dream, but I like the implications Oord explores.
April 26, 2023
An excellent addition to Oord's oevre. While I am not sure I now track with Oord's theology, I sympathize with his aims. I would like to see him have more dialogical conversations with classical theists like DBH.
The best convo I have seen so far dialoguing Classical theism and Openness theology is this pair of convos between Chris Green and Oord: https://everydaytheology.online/2020/...
I have become convinced by DBH and RO theologians about the importance of analogia entis and the need to distinguish God as being, rather than as a being...it seems to me that that is one way of seeing the core starting point difference between a Classical view and Oord's view.
I still am learning much from Oord as he continues to write and think more. May God guide his continued theologizing for the life of the world...
The best convo I have seen so far dialoguing Classical theism and Openness theology is this pair of convos between Chris Green and Oord: https://everydaytheology.online/2020/...
I have become convinced by DBH and RO theologians about the importance of analogia entis and the need to distinguish God as being, rather than as a being...it seems to me that that is one way of seeing the core starting point difference between a Classical view and Oord's view.
I still am learning much from Oord as he continues to write and think more. May God guide his continued theologizing for the life of the world...
February 24, 2024
Ich fand das Buch von Oort sehr gewinnbringend. Zuerst zeigt er an biblischen Texten auf, dass wir eine Allmachtsvorstellung in diese Texte hineinlegen, von denen sie aber eigentlich nicht sprechen. Sie sprechen vielmehr davon, dass Gott mächtig handelt. Weiter geht er in einem „philosophischen“ Kapitel (aber wirklich sehr runtergebrochen) darauf ein, dass Gott nicht alles kann - Gott kann nicht lügen, auf einem Stuhl sitzen, aus 2+2 eine 7 machen, usw. Im dritten Kapitel zeigt er auf, dass Allmachts-Vorstellungen im Leid der Menschen recht destruktiv sein können. Im vierten Kapitel geht er darauf ein, welches Gottesbild denn rekonstruiert werden sollte. Er plädiert statt einer Omnipotence (Allmacht) für eine Amipotenz (Liebevolle Macht?).
Insgesamt überzeugen mich viele seiner Gedanken. Trotzdem habe ich meine Anfragen. Seine Ausführungen klingen mir zu fertig, zu abgeschlossen, zu absolut (was aber fairerweise für ein populärwissenschaftliches Buch in Ordnung ist). Auch wenn das zentrale Gottesbild des NT zeigt, dass Gott bewusst in Christus auf Macht verzichtet, haben wir Gottesbilder in der Johannesapokalypse, die sehr stark in eine allmächtige „Pantokrator“-Vibes Richtung gehen. Da fehlten mir weiterführende Gedanken (Oord geht nur kurz darauf ein). Auch hätte ich gerne noch mehr biblische Ausführungen zu seinen Amipotenz-Gedanken gelesen. Er dekonstruiert ein gesamtes Kapitel lang die Allmachtsvorstellungen, die eig nicht in biblischen Texten zu finden ist, rekonstruiert dann aber nur mit paar wenigen Versen die Amipotenz. Hier könnten Kritikerinnen und Kritiker behaupten, dass die Amipotenz genauso wenig im biblischen Befund vorkomme, wie die Omnipotenz.
Insgesamt aber echt spannende und kontroverse Thesen.
Insgesamt überzeugen mich viele seiner Gedanken. Trotzdem habe ich meine Anfragen. Seine Ausführungen klingen mir zu fertig, zu abgeschlossen, zu absolut (was aber fairerweise für ein populärwissenschaftliches Buch in Ordnung ist). Auch wenn das zentrale Gottesbild des NT zeigt, dass Gott bewusst in Christus auf Macht verzichtet, haben wir Gottesbilder in der Johannesapokalypse, die sehr stark in eine allmächtige „Pantokrator“-Vibes Richtung gehen. Da fehlten mir weiterführende Gedanken (Oord geht nur kurz darauf ein). Auch hätte ich gerne noch mehr biblische Ausführungen zu seinen Amipotenz-Gedanken gelesen. Er dekonstruiert ein gesamtes Kapitel lang die Allmachtsvorstellungen, die eig nicht in biblischen Texten zu finden ist, rekonstruiert dann aber nur mit paar wenigen Versen die Amipotenz. Hier könnten Kritikerinnen und Kritiker behaupten, dass die Amipotenz genauso wenig im biblischen Befund vorkomme, wie die Omnipotenz.
Insgesamt aber echt spannende und kontroverse Thesen.
April 14, 2023
I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian in this review. Over the years I've greatly appreciated the work of Tom Oord. I regularly turn to his early book The Nature of Love: A Theology in sermons and writings. I've contributed to a number of Open and Relational Theology volumes that Tom has either edited or published. While it appears there are many rave reviews out there for his latest book "The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence," a book that Tom sent to me to read and review (for that I'm grateful), I'm not as happy with it as others are.
Now as to whether God is omnipotent, I would likely say no, at least if by this we mean God has power and can do all things. Even the most committed folks to the idea that God is omnipotent will qualify their position to some extent. Even Calvin offers qualifications, though he does believe that God is ultimately responsible for all things. As to whether the denial of omnipotence will make God more palatable to those who struggle with the reality of evil in the world, I'm not as sure. Tom makes every effort to deconstruct the arguments for omnipotence. I would agree with many of his concerns, but I'm not as sure about the foundation for his arguments. That foundation seems to be a growing reliance on his part on Process Theology/Philosophy. There is an additional concern, one that is connected to this reliance on Process thought, and that is what seems to me to be too great a focus on theodicy. That is, the desire to defend God's honor in the face of the ongoing presence of evil in the world. The fact is, evil does exist. I don't believe God is responsible. But, I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem, besides committing ourselves to doing what is good so that evil does not have its day. While human-caused evil is one thing natural disasters are another. Enquiring minds want to know why, if God is good and loving, God doesn't step in. Tom's answer, and that of most Process theologians, is that God does not have the power to stop evil or natural disasters from occurring. God can suffer with us and seek to persuade not only humanity but nature itself to do otherwise, but God can't stop these things from happening. Ultimately, I don't know if this book will convince questioners to give God another chance. Perhaps some will but will a less powerful God who can't stop evil be attractive to those who want God to stop evil from occurring? We'll see.
Now 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 principle among three -- God exerts all power. God can do absolutely anything. God can control others or circumstances. He notes that some affirm only one of these principles, but often qualify their position. For example, they might say that God can do anything except what is illogical. Or God might do anything but choose not to. That is, God can do anything but leaves room for us to act.
In the first three chapters, Tom deconstructs omnipotence by first arguing that omnipotence is not biblical and that arguments from scripture, such as the use of the word Almighty as in God Almighty (El Shaddai) is really a mistranslation of the Hebrew. Thus, really El Shaddai should be translated as something like God with Breasts, and as such doesn't speak of an all-powerful God but a nourishing God. He also addresses the translation of Sabaoth as in Yahweh Sabaoth -- often translated again as almighty or Lord of Hosts/forces. Finally, he points to the Greek word Pantokrator, which is used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). To some degree, he believes that the idea of God being almighty is rooted in the Greek translation of Hebrew words, a usage that then appears in the New Testament. Nonetheless, he doesn't believe that these words, including Pantokrator, should be understood in terms of omnipotence. He is likely correct in this. But whether we should expect the biblical writers to be as consistent in usage and meaning as Tom would like is another thing. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, and I depend on scholars to help me interpret the text. I will accept Tom's interpretation.
I think that where I find myself a bit befuddled is the chapter on philosophy, where Tom goes through the various qualifications of omnipotence. He insists that omnipotence dies the death of a thousand qualifications. That may be true, but sometimes I found the qualifications he raised to be a bit perfunctory and not all that serious. Yes, God can't make 2 + 2 + 1. But I don't think any serious theologians would say that, nor would they say that God can make a hornless unicorn (not that God has). If you're going to list qualifications, then list the ones that serious theologians would propose. Now, when Tom gets to qualifications that make sense like God cannot die or God cannot sin, most of us would agree, whatever our view of God's ultimate level of power. Sometimes Tom appeals to Process philosophy to make suggestions that reflect their positions, but again are these positions sound? I don't know, but I'm guessing not everyone will take Hartshorne as their authority on such matters, such as whether power can exist in isolation. That may be true, but why? Because Hartshorne says so. In any case, I found this chapter to be less useful. Again, I'm not defending omnipotence. I'm just not sure I find this chapter to be as definitive as some would like.
Now, as to whether evil ends omnipotence? Here is where theodicy really comes into play. The challenge that is posed by evil is related to the confession that God loves all of creation and that God is omnipotent. If, as most will do, confess that God is love or loving, then the presence of evil poses a challenge to omnipotence. If God loves the creation then why does God allow evil to exist? Why not create a world, if it is possible, without evil or natural disasters? Some will respond with the idea that God grants us free will, but at least for some that still doesn't work. We can leave this to the realm of mystery, but Tom would rather eliminate such appeals (I'm more comfortable with mystery and inconsistency than is Tom). While Tom suggests a solution to the conundrum that will suffice for many, I'm not sure it will work for all.
The reason why I find myself a bit of a contrarian is that I wish Tom had spent less space deconstructing omnipotence and more space defining his alternative. There is a tendency among many open and relational folks to focus on contrasting their views with the ones they disagree with. Sometimes that can be a bit tendentious. I wonder if that is due to the fact that many in this camp (and I have included myself in this camp) are ex-evangelicals who bring some of that black-and-white thinking from their former place to the new place.
The last chapter serves to introduce us to Tom's alternative which is a-mi-po-tence (the I is a short I). The translation of this newly coined word is essentially "power of love." Tom believes that if we let go of omnipotence we need a new word to describe this new way of thinking about what a non-omnipotent God does. Now, I'm not sure we need a new word. I'm perfectly content with the Hebrew word Hesed or "steadfast love." Why not just go biblical and confess that the steadfast love of God endures forever? When I got to this chapter, I wanted more. Now Tom notes that his idea of amipotence fits Jewish and Muslim perspectives as well, so he doesn't bring Jesus into the mix as much as we might expect (and personally I wish he had). As for the Trinity, he acknowledges the possibility that love might exist in intratrinitarian fashion, but Tom doesn't seem as interested as some of us are in the Trinity.
I hope this book helps some besides those already committed to a Process orientation. My expectation is that many questioners will not find a less powerful God attractive and thus remain agnostic/atheist. Others will possibly recognize the challenges of omnipotence, but with certain qualifications still find it attractive. In other words, I'm not sure the death knell has been hammered into omnipotence (though I've jettisoned it --- see my book Speaking of God: An Introductory Conversation About How Christians Talk About God).
Now as to whether God is omnipotent, I would likely say no, at least if by this we mean God has power and can do all things. Even the most committed folks to the idea that God is omnipotent will qualify their position to some extent. Even Calvin offers qualifications, though he does believe that God is ultimately responsible for all things. As to whether the denial of omnipotence will make God more palatable to those who struggle with the reality of evil in the world, I'm not as sure. Tom makes every effort to deconstruct the arguments for omnipotence. I would agree with many of his concerns, but I'm not as sure about the foundation for his arguments. That foundation seems to be a growing reliance on his part on Process Theology/Philosophy. There is an additional concern, one that is connected to this reliance on Process thought, and that is what seems to me to be too great a focus on theodicy. That is, the desire to defend God's honor in the face of the ongoing presence of evil in the world. The fact is, evil does exist. I don't believe God is responsible. But, I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem, besides committing ourselves to doing what is good so that evil does not have its day. While human-caused evil is one thing natural disasters are another. Enquiring minds want to know why, if God is good and loving, God doesn't step in. Tom's answer, and that of most Process theologians, is that God does not have the power to stop evil or natural disasters from occurring. God can suffer with us and seek to persuade not only humanity but nature itself to do otherwise, but God can't stop these things from happening. Ultimately, I don't know if this book will convince questioners to give God another chance. Perhaps some will but will a less powerful God who can't stop evil be attractive to those who want God to stop evil from occurring? We'll see.
Now 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 principle among three -- God exerts all power. God can do absolutely anything. God can control others or circumstances. He notes that some affirm only one of these principles, but often qualify their position. For example, they might say that God can do anything except what is illogical. Or God might do anything but choose not to. That is, God can do anything but leaves room for us to act.
In the first three chapters, Tom deconstructs omnipotence by first arguing that omnipotence is not biblical and that arguments from scripture, such as the use of the word Almighty as in God Almighty (El Shaddai) is really a mistranslation of the Hebrew. Thus, really El Shaddai should be translated as something like God with Breasts, and as such doesn't speak of an all-powerful God but a nourishing God. He also addresses the translation of Sabaoth as in Yahweh Sabaoth -- often translated again as almighty or Lord of Hosts/forces. Finally, he points to the Greek word Pantokrator, which is used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). To some degree, he believes that the idea of God being almighty is rooted in the Greek translation of Hebrew words, a usage that then appears in the New Testament. Nonetheless, he doesn't believe that these words, including Pantokrator, should be understood in terms of omnipotence. He is likely correct in this. But whether we should expect the biblical writers to be as consistent in usage and meaning as Tom would like is another thing. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, and I depend on scholars to help me interpret the text. I will accept Tom's interpretation.
I think that where I find myself a bit befuddled is the chapter on philosophy, where Tom goes through the various qualifications of omnipotence. He insists that omnipotence dies the death of a thousand qualifications. That may be true, but sometimes I found the qualifications he raised to be a bit perfunctory and not all that serious. Yes, God can't make 2 + 2 + 1. But I don't think any serious theologians would say that, nor would they say that God can make a hornless unicorn (not that God has). If you're going to list qualifications, then list the ones that serious theologians would propose. Now, when Tom gets to qualifications that make sense like God cannot die or God cannot sin, most of us would agree, whatever our view of God's ultimate level of power. Sometimes Tom appeals to Process philosophy to make suggestions that reflect their positions, but again are these positions sound? I don't know, but I'm guessing not everyone will take Hartshorne as their authority on such matters, such as whether power can exist in isolation. That may be true, but why? Because Hartshorne says so. In any case, I found this chapter to be less useful. Again, I'm not defending omnipotence. I'm just not sure I find this chapter to be as definitive as some would like.
Now, as to whether evil ends omnipotence? Here is where theodicy really comes into play. The challenge that is posed by evil is related to the confession that God loves all of creation and that God is omnipotent. If, as most will do, confess that God is love or loving, then the presence of evil poses a challenge to omnipotence. If God loves the creation then why does God allow evil to exist? Why not create a world, if it is possible, without evil or natural disasters? Some will respond with the idea that God grants us free will, but at least for some that still doesn't work. We can leave this to the realm of mystery, but Tom would rather eliminate such appeals (I'm more comfortable with mystery and inconsistency than is Tom). While Tom suggests a solution to the conundrum that will suffice for many, I'm not sure it will work for all.
The reason why I find myself a bit of a contrarian is that I wish Tom had spent less space deconstructing omnipotence and more space defining his alternative. There is a tendency among many open and relational folks to focus on contrasting their views with the ones they disagree with. Sometimes that can be a bit tendentious. I wonder if that is due to the fact that many in this camp (and I have included myself in this camp) are ex-evangelicals who bring some of that black-and-white thinking from their former place to the new place.
The last chapter serves to introduce us to Tom's alternative which is a-mi-po-tence (the I is a short I). The translation of this newly coined word is essentially "power of love." Tom believes that if we let go of omnipotence we need a new word to describe this new way of thinking about what a non-omnipotent God does. Now, I'm not sure we need a new word. I'm perfectly content with the Hebrew word Hesed or "steadfast love." Why not just go biblical and confess that the steadfast love of God endures forever? When I got to this chapter, I wanted more. Now Tom notes that his idea of amipotence fits Jewish and Muslim perspectives as well, so he doesn't bring Jesus into the mix as much as we might expect (and personally I wish he had). As for the Trinity, he acknowledges the possibility that love might exist in intratrinitarian fashion, but Tom doesn't seem as interested as some of us are in the Trinity.
I hope this book helps some besides those already committed to a Process orientation. My expectation is that many questioners will not find a less powerful God attractive and thus remain agnostic/atheist. Others will possibly recognize the challenges of omnipotence, but with certain qualifications still find it attractive. In other words, I'm not sure the death knell has been hammered into omnipotence (though I've jettisoned it --- see my book Speaking of God: An Introductory Conversation About How Christians Talk About God).
May 21, 2024
Met dit boek stelt Thomas Jay Oord een even radicale als prachtige nieuwe manier om naar God te kijken voor: we moeten God beschouwen als oneindig liefhebbend en liefdevol, maar niet als oneindig machtig. Het is heel verfrissend om eens een theoloog te lezen die het immense leed in de wereld niet probeert weg te denken of minimaliseren.
Leed en onrecht gebeuren volgens Oords theologie wanneer de omstandigheden of personen in kwestie niet kunnen of willen zijn op de manier dat God (die Liefde is) dat wil, namelijk op de manier waardoor er meer liefde en welzijn in de wereld komt. Daar waar geluk en liefde zijn, daar handelt God. Het goede komt van God, en God verlangt onze medewerking om zo liefde tot stand te brengen in de wereld.
Ik vind dit een bijzonder boek en werd er bij momenten emotioneel door geraakt. Het brengt onder woorden waar ik zelf al enige tijd over zat te denken. Dit is echt wel een aanrader voor iedereen die op welke manier dan ook met geloof bezig is.
Leed en onrecht gebeuren volgens Oords theologie wanneer de omstandigheden of personen in kwestie niet kunnen of willen zijn op de manier dat God (die Liefde is) dat wil, namelijk op de manier waardoor er meer liefde en welzijn in de wereld komt. Daar waar geluk en liefde zijn, daar handelt God. Het goede komt van God, en God verlangt onze medewerking om zo liefde tot stand te brengen in de wereld.
Ik vind dit een bijzonder boek en werd er bij momenten emotioneel door geraakt. Het brengt onder woorden waar ik zelf al enige tijd over zat te denken. Dit is echt wel een aanrader voor iedereen die op welke manier dan ook met geloof bezig is.
September 26, 2023
Tom Oord never disappoints. This book is persuasive. It is biblically rigorous, and theologically and philosophically sophisticated. It is accessible and readable.
February 13, 2024
I appreciate Oord’s way of presenting his idea and then working through it to show how he got there. This is a big idea that I’m going to have to think about for a while.
January 10, 2024
Hard pass. So disappointed and a little annoyed I bought 3 of his books before reading this one, because I would have passed on the rest. I purchased this book because I’ve been curious about open/relational theology, and I wanted to hear a scholarly perspective. I’m sure there are great works out there on this subject, and I’m hoping to find them, but this was not it for me.
I’m actually shocked this author is a philosophy professor, as theological fallacies within it abound. So many strawman arguments, it feels like a cornfield. Through the whole book he offers over simplified, reductionist summaries of others’ beliefs and then combats them with oversimplified and reductionist one sentence paragraphs. I’m sorry, you can’t just debunk creation ex nihlio and miracles in a few pages and then mic drop.
I would also appreciate a far more clear defining of terms.
As a last point, which isn’t a scholarly comment, but a stylistic one - his attitude in the book was not enjoyable to read. It smacks of arrogance and smugness rather than humility and thoughtfulness.
Thomas Oord - if you read this, I’m sure you’re a lovely brother in Christ. My apologies if this review is misplaced. I’m glad your work has encouraged so many. I will read the rest of your books because I want to understand what you’re saying! I’m sure you’re not arrogant and smug, it’s just the way your words came across to me. Maybe your way of writing just speaks to some and not others. Bless you.
I’m actually shocked this author is a philosophy professor, as theological fallacies within it abound. So many strawman arguments, it feels like a cornfield. Through the whole book he offers over simplified, reductionist summaries of others’ beliefs and then combats them with oversimplified and reductionist one sentence paragraphs. I’m sorry, you can’t just debunk creation ex nihlio and miracles in a few pages and then mic drop.
I would also appreciate a far more clear defining of terms.
As a last point, which isn’t a scholarly comment, but a stylistic one - his attitude in the book was not enjoyable to read. It smacks of arrogance and smugness rather than humility and thoughtfulness.
Thomas Oord - if you read this, I’m sure you’re a lovely brother in Christ. My apologies if this review is misplaced. I’m glad your work has encouraged so many. I will read the rest of your books because I want to understand what you’re saying! I’m sure you’re not arrogant and smug, it’s just the way your words came across to me. Maybe your way of writing just speaks to some and not others. Bless you.
December 9, 2023
Overall a pretty enjoyable read. I appreciate Oord pointing out different issues that bubble out of believing in an omnipotent God. I'm still a bit confused as to how his theory of amipotence plays out. I felt like he didn't do a great job of hashing that out, or maybe I'm just too dense to understand.. I wanted more concrete potential examples of how God is moving in a powerful, loving, yet uncontrolling way. Oord seems very knowledgable in the theological/philosophy realm, but I wish more of this book was down at my dumb level.
September 25, 2023
The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence, Thomas Jay Oord, SacraSage Press (Grasmere, ID). 2023, 159 pages, including index. ISBN: 9781948609913.
Over the past year and a half or so, I have reviewed many of Thomas Oord’s books, from Open & Relational Theology to God Can’t. Each in their own way touches upon omnipotence and amipotence as attributes of God. In each, Oord champions amipotence. The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence is his most direct challenge to the theory of God being omnipotent. His back cover succinctly states case:
Omnipotence is not born of scripture. Omnipotence is “dead,” buried by evil, “but God is not dead; God is amipotent.” In The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence Oord sets out to prove his point.
Before get into the book, we need to define both omnipotence and amipotence. Omnipotence, from a theological standpoint, refers to God’s all-powerful character. When we state that God is omnipotent, we affirm that there is nothing that God cannot accomplish. God is most-powerful, and holds absolute power over the universe.
Amipotence, is a word that Oord coined from two Latin words, ami and potens. The first means love, the second is the Latin word for power as in influence. We find it in both “potential” and “potency.” Amipotence stresses, according to Oord, “(T)he priority of love over power in God. Divine love (ami) comes logically and conceptually prior to divine power (potens). We best understand God in general and divine power in particular if we give love pride of place.” To simply state it, amipotence means, “Love comes first.”
In the Introduction, “Obituary and Birth Certificate” Oord claims omnipotence cannot sustain itself and is “dead.” He notes that omnipotence is replaced by the “birth” of amipotence. Oord tells us that the death of omnipotence should be celebrated. In the introduction he lays out the argument that he will present to sustain his claims, and then in the final chapter, introduces the reader to amipotence.
I like Oord’s chapter titles. They think about omnipotence from anything he says in the chapter. The titles are self-explanatory of where he is going in each chapter.
For example, “Not born of Scripture.” It makes you think, and you know immediately where Oord is going in that particular chapter. Same way with “Death by a Thousand Qualification” and “Evil Ends Omnipotence. With titles like these, I want to read the what Oord has to say. Following this sequence, Oord should have titled the last chapter, “The Birth of Amipotence,” for that is what it is about. Here, in this chapter, Oord lays out why Amipotence it a far better way to understand God, than is omnipotence.
I think Oord does a pretty good job of showing how omnipotence is not scripture and that the idea of amipotence – God is Love – is. But read the book for yourself and then decide. Personally, I think you will be convinced, or at the very least challenged to rethink omnipotence.
I might add from a personal perspective, that omnipotence does not fit into the view that the universe is a divine liturgy, but that’s for another time.
Over the past year and a half or so, I have reviewed many of Thomas Oord’s books, from Open & Relational Theology to God Can’t. Each in their own way touches upon omnipotence and amipotence as attributes of God. In each, Oord champions amipotence. The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence is his most direct challenge to the theory of God being omnipotent. His back cover succinctly states case:
Omnipotence is not born of scripture. Omnipotence is “dead,” buried by evil, “but God is not dead; God is amipotent.” In The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence Oord sets out to prove his point.
Before get into the book, we need to define both omnipotence and amipotence. Omnipotence, from a theological standpoint, refers to God’s all-powerful character. When we state that God is omnipotent, we affirm that there is nothing that God cannot accomplish. God is most-powerful, and holds absolute power over the universe.
Amipotence, is a word that Oord coined from two Latin words, ami and potens. The first means love, the second is the Latin word for power as in influence. We find it in both “potential” and “potency.” Amipotence stresses, according to Oord, “(T)he priority of love over power in God. Divine love (ami) comes logically and conceptually prior to divine power (potens). We best understand God in general and divine power in particular if we give love pride of place.” To simply state it, amipotence means, “Love comes first.”
In the Introduction, “Obituary and Birth Certificate” Oord claims omnipotence cannot sustain itself and is “dead.” He notes that omnipotence is replaced by the “birth” of amipotence. Oord tells us that the death of omnipotence should be celebrated. In the introduction he lays out the argument that he will present to sustain his claims, and then in the final chapter, introduces the reader to amipotence.
I like Oord’s chapter titles. They think about omnipotence from anything he says in the chapter. The titles are self-explanatory of where he is going in each chapter.
For example, “Not born of Scripture.” It makes you think, and you know immediately where Oord is going in that particular chapter. Same way with “Death by a Thousand Qualification” and “Evil Ends Omnipotence. With titles like these, I want to read the what Oord has to say. Following this sequence, Oord should have titled the last chapter, “The Birth of Amipotence,” for that is what it is about. Here, in this chapter, Oord lays out why Amipotence it a far better way to understand God, than is omnipotence.
I think Oord does a pretty good job of showing how omnipotence is not scripture and that the idea of amipotence – God is Love – is. But read the book for yourself and then decide. Personally, I think you will be convinced, or at the very least challenged to rethink omnipotence.
I might add from a personal perspective, that omnipotence does not fit into the view that the universe is a divine liturgy, but that’s for another time.
April 5, 2024
This review is not an angry conservative rant. I am very sympathetic to how various assumptions have influenced our viewpoints throughout the ages. I don't think the author's line of questioning is bad. I just really, really took issues with what I felt like were smug conclusions that often seemed to lack the force or coherence the author thought. Unfortunately I listened to this as a commute book, so my ability to remember my specific issues is limited, but I'll try to remember a few here.
My major issue was the author's main contention which was that omnipotence is meaningless if God can't really do everything. I mean, technically, I guess he's right, but that's not at all how we speak in real life. If my kid asks me what they can eat - if I tell them they can eat ANYTHING in the kitchen, would they be mad at me if they then got sick off eating shards of glass or chewing on the furniture? Well, I said "anything in the kitchen," didn't I. Yes, but we all know that means "anything edible." So when discussing omnipotence, it seems crazy to me that we have to caveat that this doesn't mean logically impossible things and stuff like that.
Another issue I had was that the author said if God could stop evil - or something like cancer - but doesn't, then that's not fair/right. Of course not preventing evil when one could can be wrong, but there are plenty of times when its not. Stopping an evil by doing an evil isn't right or good, and also allowing some pain can also be a good as any parent or any person who has loved an addict should know. Yet the author just makes broad generalizations which seem to stem more from a lack of trust than from any logical necessity. Not to mention, if the author's amnipotent God created a universe and had any semblance of intellect whatsoever, he would have known he was bringing into being a world which would produce evil. Apparently an amnipotent God recognizes that there is an ultimate good which justifies being responsible for bringing evil into existence.
A multitude of issues arose throughout the book in relation to how could God interact at all in the world based on the author's concept of God, how could he create, how could he have knowledge, how could he provide hope, how could he raise Jesus from the dead (if the author even believes that happens or matters).
Like I said, I respect the questioning here, but I just don't think this is the book you want to delve into. Greg Boyd has some good thoughts in "The Crucifixion of the Warrior God," and other Open Theists like him can provide you more coherent thoughts on this topic, because honestly, the idea of God relating to creatures is a big problem for those who adhere to an impassible and omnipotent God. The questions the author raises here and the critiques against omnipotence are important to address, but I just don't think the author did a great job of fleshing that out.
My major issue was the author's main contention which was that omnipotence is meaningless if God can't really do everything. I mean, technically, I guess he's right, but that's not at all how we speak in real life. If my kid asks me what they can eat - if I tell them they can eat ANYTHING in the kitchen, would they be mad at me if they then got sick off eating shards of glass or chewing on the furniture? Well, I said "anything in the kitchen," didn't I. Yes, but we all know that means "anything edible." So when discussing omnipotence, it seems crazy to me that we have to caveat that this doesn't mean logically impossible things and stuff like that.
Another issue I had was that the author said if God could stop evil - or something like cancer - but doesn't, then that's not fair/right. Of course not preventing evil when one could can be wrong, but there are plenty of times when its not. Stopping an evil by doing an evil isn't right or good, and also allowing some pain can also be a good as any parent or any person who has loved an addict should know. Yet the author just makes broad generalizations which seem to stem more from a lack of trust than from any logical necessity. Not to mention, if the author's amnipotent God created a universe and had any semblance of intellect whatsoever, he would have known he was bringing into being a world which would produce evil. Apparently an amnipotent God recognizes that there is an ultimate good which justifies being responsible for bringing evil into existence.
A multitude of issues arose throughout the book in relation to how could God interact at all in the world based on the author's concept of God, how could he create, how could he have knowledge, how could he provide hope, how could he raise Jesus from the dead (if the author even believes that happens or matters).
Like I said, I respect the questioning here, but I just don't think this is the book you want to delve into. Greg Boyd has some good thoughts in "The Crucifixion of the Warrior God," and other Open Theists like him can provide you more coherent thoughts on this topic, because honestly, the idea of God relating to creatures is a big problem for those who adhere to an impassible and omnipotent God. The questions the author raises here and the critiques against omnipotence are important to address, but I just don't think the author did a great job of fleshing that out.
April 17, 2023
Omnipotance - God's all powerful, all controlling nature - has been the default theological position of much of historical and contemporary Christianity and Islam. And it's among the biggest things wrong with both religions abilities to stir faith in a believable, beautiful God.
In this very readable, clear and concise text, Tom Oord spends three chapters exposing the flaws and harms in the doctrine of omnipotence in the Christian tradition. One, omnipotence is not required by scripture. The word isn't in the Bible and only shows up when three Hebrew and Greek terms are translated poorly. Beyond mere vocabulary, God isn't mostly portrayed as controlling, able to do absolutely everything, or the source of all power and agency. Two, omnipotence doesn't make sense philosophically. As Oord writes, it "dies the death of a thousand qualifications." Three, omnipotence doesn't align with our experience of a world that includes so much as it shouldn't be. In this chapter, Oord briefly restates his version of an open and relational response to the problem of evil, highlighting God's uncontrolling love, God's persuasive but not coercive power, and the real freedom and power of creation to cooperate or not with God's good purposes.
In the final chapter of the book, Oord proposes ways to think about the power of God that acknowledge God's existence and work without resorting to cartoonish caricatures of God's power that don't match our experience. He calls God's power amnipotent, not omnipotent. What he means is that God's primary quality is love, not power, and that God's power is always consistent with God's ever-loving nature. In this chapter, Oord discusses how a God who is spirit, not body, and who is uncontrolling nevertheless exercises significant power in the world. Primarily, this is through omnipresent persuasive energy toward what is most beautiful, good, creative, and loving.
Oord's work on divine power is more consistent with the best of the ancient texts and the tradition. It is also more consistent with the insights of science and our own experience, leaving us with ways of thinking about God's power that are believable.
In this very readable, clear and concise text, Tom Oord spends three chapters exposing the flaws and harms in the doctrine of omnipotence in the Christian tradition. One, omnipotence is not required by scripture. The word isn't in the Bible and only shows up when three Hebrew and Greek terms are translated poorly. Beyond mere vocabulary, God isn't mostly portrayed as controlling, able to do absolutely everything, or the source of all power and agency. Two, omnipotence doesn't make sense philosophically. As Oord writes, it "dies the death of a thousand qualifications." Three, omnipotence doesn't align with our experience of a world that includes so much as it shouldn't be. In this chapter, Oord briefly restates his version of an open and relational response to the problem of evil, highlighting God's uncontrolling love, God's persuasive but not coercive power, and the real freedom and power of creation to cooperate or not with God's good purposes.
In the final chapter of the book, Oord proposes ways to think about the power of God that acknowledge God's existence and work without resorting to cartoonish caricatures of God's power that don't match our experience. He calls God's power amnipotent, not omnipotent. What he means is that God's primary quality is love, not power, and that God's power is always consistent with God's ever-loving nature. In this chapter, Oord discusses how a God who is spirit, not body, and who is uncontrolling nevertheless exercises significant power in the world. Primarily, this is through omnipresent persuasive energy toward what is most beautiful, good, creative, and loving.
Oord's work on divine power is more consistent with the best of the ancient texts and the tradition. It is also more consistent with the insights of science and our own experience, leaving us with ways of thinking about God's power that are believable.
May 21, 2023
Oord does an excellent job demonstrating the problems of omnipotence theology and why amipotence (Oord’s alternative to omnipotence) is a better description of God. I appreciate that Oord outlines different definitions for omnipotence and addresses each of them. (One of my favorite aspects of Oord’s writing in general is how he considers all possible critiques of his ideas and offers responses. It shows that he has thought over every detail to be sure there are no holes in his reasoning. Great thinker and great writer.)
But, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence is not just logical and well-supported; for me, it’s personal. As someone who grew up strongly believing in an omnipotent God (I was Calvinist), I severely struggled to understand God as loving and personal. An all-powerful God felt distant, and an all-controlling God felt domineering, coercive, and heartless. In a world where both good and evil exists, an omnipotent God has a lot to answer for, and I never got the answers I needed. Now, after reading Oord’s books, I finally realize that it’s impossible to truly justify an omnipotent God! AND that I can still believe in a powerful, loving God without omnipotence in the picture.
I love that Oord does not just critique omnipotence theology but also offers an alternative. Amipotence, which says that God’s power is in the framework of God’s uncontrolling love. I understand amipotence as the power of love, which lives in stark contrast to the controlling, domineering power of omnipotence. Amipotence is, to me, the greatest explanation of a good God in a world where evil exists.
Ultimately, this book might change your life. It will certainly change your view of omnipotence, God’s power, and goodness in the midst of suffering!
But, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence is not just logical and well-supported; for me, it’s personal. As someone who grew up strongly believing in an omnipotent God (I was Calvinist), I severely struggled to understand God as loving and personal. An all-powerful God felt distant, and an all-controlling God felt domineering, coercive, and heartless. In a world where both good and evil exists, an omnipotent God has a lot to answer for, and I never got the answers I needed. Now, after reading Oord’s books, I finally realize that it’s impossible to truly justify an omnipotent God! AND that I can still believe in a powerful, loving God without omnipotence in the picture.
I love that Oord does not just critique omnipotence theology but also offers an alternative. Amipotence, which says that God’s power is in the framework of God’s uncontrolling love. I understand amipotence as the power of love, which lives in stark contrast to the controlling, domineering power of omnipotence. Amipotence is, to me, the greatest explanation of a good God in a world where evil exists.
Ultimately, this book might change your life. It will certainly change your view of omnipotence, God’s power, and goodness in the midst of suffering!
June 29, 2023
This book is a critical and constructive theological engagement with the nature of divine power. Oord's radical thesis is that the classical theistic notion of an all-powerful (omnipotent) God is biblically groundless, philosophically indefensible, existentially problematic, and politically dangerous, and that it ought to be replaced with what he calls divine "amipotence"—the uncontrolling power of love. By replacing omnipotence with amipotence—which is not to be confused with deistic impotence—Oord provides a plausible solution to the problem of evil. His thesis also has important implications for theistic views of religious pluralism, human diversity, spiritual experiences, political theology, ecology, and divine involvement in evolution and cosmic deep time. In light of the fact that the problem of evil is a major obstacle to belief in God for many people today, theists and non-theists alike should seriously consider Oord's arguments. He writes with admirable clarity and with minimal academic jargon, which should make this book accessible to a wider readership. While reading the book, I was reminded of Charles Hartshorne's classic work, "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes." Indeed, Oord is influenced by Hartshorne's work, along with other key thinkers in process theology like Alfred North Whitehead, John B. Cobb Jr., and David Ray Griffin. The title of Oord's book also reminded me of Nietzsche's notion of the death of God. Yet whereas Nietzsche embraced atheism, Oord goes beyond the atheistic death of God by announcing the birth of divine amipotence: "Omnipotence is dead. But amipotence can live" (150). While Oord has previously written several excellent books on the topics of divine power and love, this might be his best book yet.
April 19, 2023
Oord begins his newest work, as he so often does, painting a picture grounded in the realities of North American Christianity—this time, God’s power, a staple of the movement, is set to die. Refrains like “My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do,” demonstrates the entrenchment of many in the idea that the Christian God is, indeed, powerful beyond measure. The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence presents what is perhaps a groundbreaking, but most certainly a theologically sound, argument challenging the traditional Christian concept of God's omnipotence—the quality of having unlimited power.
Oord uses his expertise in exegesis to dive deep into the Christian scriptures, relying, too, on extensive documentation from early church fathers and current philosophers and theologians, to convincingly debunk various understandings of God's perceived omnipotence. He argues that a God of love—with love here being God's essential nature—is not simply omnipotent but is rather “amipotent,” a term he coined to describe what God can and can't do because of the parameters love puts around God’s power. (While this book stands alone, it, too, compliments Oord’s previous works such as God Can't.)
The book highlights the underlying inadequacy of describing God as omnipotent and concludes that “amipotence,” which Oord defines as something like love plus power, is a more appropriate term. He convincingly argues that love is the priority and power that is key to comprehending what amipotence means and how it influences all of creation. Overall, "The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence" is a compelling and thought-provoking exploration of the nature of God's power and how it relates to who God is love itself.
— Niq Ruud, niqruud.com/remarks
Oord uses his expertise in exegesis to dive deep into the Christian scriptures, relying, too, on extensive documentation from early church fathers and current philosophers and theologians, to convincingly debunk various understandings of God's perceived omnipotence. He argues that a God of love—with love here being God's essential nature—is not simply omnipotent but is rather “amipotent,” a term he coined to describe what God can and can't do because of the parameters love puts around God’s power. (While this book stands alone, it, too, compliments Oord’s previous works such as God Can't.)
The book highlights the underlying inadequacy of describing God as omnipotent and concludes that “amipotence,” which Oord defines as something like love plus power, is a more appropriate term. He convincingly argues that love is the priority and power that is key to comprehending what amipotence means and how it influences all of creation. Overall, "The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence" is a compelling and thought-provoking exploration of the nature of God's power and how it relates to who God is love itself.
— Niq Ruud, niqruud.com/remarks
April 23, 2023
I have followed Thomas Jay Oord's work for a number of years now, so when I heard he was releasing a new book, I was excited to read it. As I finished Thomas Jay Oord's newest book, The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence, two words came to mind.
The first word that came to mind was "beautiful". In many ways, the god of omnipotence is an ugly god. That god controls you and I. That god causes evil. That god is behind all of the genocides and abuse that have happened throughout history. But the God of amipotence, well, *that* God is exceedingly beautiful. A God who loves everyone and everything that ever was. A God who is always drawing us into relationship with Godself, that we, too, might love others more fully. A God who at all times in all possible ways is working for the good of every part of creation-could a more beautiful God be imagined?
The second word that came to mind was "important". This work and all that it implies is enough to change worldviews and outlooks on life. If indeed omnipotence is dead, there are consequences for nearly every area of life-politics, personal relationships, ethics, the economy, charity, how we view authority, the list could go on and on.
If you are in need of more beauty in your life, if you are interested in important ideas, check out this book. You will not regret it.
The first word that came to mind was "beautiful". In many ways, the god of omnipotence is an ugly god. That god controls you and I. That god causes evil. That god is behind all of the genocides and abuse that have happened throughout history. But the God of amipotence, well, *that* God is exceedingly beautiful. A God who loves everyone and everything that ever was. A God who is always drawing us into relationship with Godself, that we, too, might love others more fully. A God who at all times in all possible ways is working for the good of every part of creation-could a more beautiful God be imagined?
The second word that came to mind was "important". This work and all that it implies is enough to change worldviews and outlooks on life. If indeed omnipotence is dead, there are consequences for nearly every area of life-politics, personal relationships, ethics, the economy, charity, how we view authority, the list could go on and on.
If you are in need of more beauty in your life, if you are interested in important ideas, check out this book. You will not regret it.
October 25, 2023
This is a really interesting philosophical look at the theological concept of God's omnipotence. Oord unpacks what omnipotence actually means and challenges the concept in 3 main ways.
Firstly, Oord highlights how the phrase omnipotence is missing from scripture and where other concepts such as "almighty" are used, these actually can be translated in different ways, with significant implications.
Secondly, he challenges the usefulness of the concept of omnipotence, arguing that there are so many exceptions (listing all the things God can't do, such as lie, sin, be unfaithful, make a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it, make 2+2=1 etc. ), that it dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Thirdly, he challenges omnipotence in light of the existence of evil and suffering. If God is all loving AND all powerful, then why...
Oord masterfully deconstructs Omnipotence to bring the reader to his proposed alternative term: Amipotence. A powerful God whose primary nature is love, but that requires cooperation with Creation (and humanity) rather than unilaterally control all things, whether they like it or not.
It's a compelling read and the philosophical approach of Oord is refreshing. I'd recommend this book to anyone exploring deconstruction, but wondering what might emerge from the ashes.
Firstly, Oord highlights how the phrase omnipotence is missing from scripture and where other concepts such as "almighty" are used, these actually can be translated in different ways, with significant implications.
Secondly, he challenges the usefulness of the concept of omnipotence, arguing that there are so many exceptions (listing all the things God can't do, such as lie, sin, be unfaithful, make a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it, make 2+2=1 etc. ), that it dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Thirdly, he challenges omnipotence in light of the existence of evil and suffering. If God is all loving AND all powerful, then why...
Oord masterfully deconstructs Omnipotence to bring the reader to his proposed alternative term: Amipotence. A powerful God whose primary nature is love, but that requires cooperation with Creation (and humanity) rather than unilaterally control all things, whether they like it or not.
It's a compelling read and the philosophical approach of Oord is refreshing. I'd recommend this book to anyone exploring deconstruction, but wondering what might emerge from the ashes.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 11, 2023
As one who served as a pastor for more than 30 years and the last 10 years as a independent biblical scholar, it is obvious that one of beliefs held by most Christians, which created the most confusion and discouragement when personal challenges and tragedies struck, can best be summed up in the statement, "God is in control."
Dr. Thomas Jay Oord, addresses this problematic theological view by going to the very heart of the matter: God's presumed omnipotence. He clearly delineates the problems with the classical theological view that God is omnipotent, biblically (chapter 1), philosophically (chapter 2), and experientially (chapter 3). In Chapter 4, Oord establishes that the key/foundational divine nature is love and argues to replace the concept of "omnipotence" with "amipotence" where love determines how God works in the universe and in our lives.
This book is well worth reading and should engender much discussion and debate and hopefully will contribute to many rethinking and reimagining the divine nature in a way that better fits with human experience. In fact, I plan to reread it and write a more detailed review in the not-to-distant future.
Dr. Thomas Jay Oord, addresses this problematic theological view by going to the very heart of the matter: God's presumed omnipotence. He clearly delineates the problems with the classical theological view that God is omnipotent, biblically (chapter 1), philosophically (chapter 2), and experientially (chapter 3). In Chapter 4, Oord establishes that the key/foundational divine nature is love and argues to replace the concept of "omnipotence" with "amipotence" where love determines how God works in the universe and in our lives.
This book is well worth reading and should engender much discussion and debate and hopefully will contribute to many rethinking and reimagining the divine nature in a way that better fits with human experience. In fact, I plan to reread it and write a more detailed review in the not-to-distant future.
December 24, 2024
Oord's argument is that we privilege power as the primary attribute of God. If you don't think so, try questioning whether God is really 'all-powerful' (as Oord does in this book) on a social media post and see what the responses look like. From experience, I can tell you: visceral. Thus, given our training and habits, I think it likely that most Christians will distrust this book, many will criticise it and some will detest it.
Yet whatever someone thinks about the writer's position, he lays out his class thoughtfully. For me, I find the arguments, if not wholly convincing, at least persuasive. We need to maintain an open view and a willingness to question, though, in order to give these ideas full consideration.
And really, Oord's contention that love is God's primary attribute, which we should see as governing the others, isn't especially controversial in its own right. It's accepting the possibility of a non-omnipotent God that someone like me, with a decades-long background in the evangelical church, will find challenging.
If you're familiar with open and relational theology, this book won't seem like a giant leap to you. If not... well, like I said, keep an open mind.
Yet whatever someone thinks about the writer's position, he lays out his class thoughtfully. For me, I find the arguments, if not wholly convincing, at least persuasive. We need to maintain an open view and a willingness to question, though, in order to give these ideas full consideration.
And really, Oord's contention that love is God's primary attribute, which we should see as governing the others, isn't especially controversial in its own right. It's accepting the possibility of a non-omnipotent God that someone like me, with a decades-long background in the evangelical church, will find challenging.
If you're familiar with open and relational theology, this book won't seem like a giant leap to you. If not... well, like I said, keep an open mind.
April 19, 2023
Thought Provoking
Oord does a thorough job of deconstructing the idea of the omnipotence of God. He’s been working on hot this thought of a God who is uncontrolling love for years, and in this work, he coins the term Amipotence to describe God’s heavily influential love constantly working all things for the good of humanity, but ultimately is limited by His nature of love. Oord thoroughly documents his references to support his argument. Folks can disagree, but I find value in his thoughts in that by attempting to solve the problem of evil and the problem of good (why good things happen to bad people) he creates space for people whom have been traumatized or hurt and have wondered why an omnipotent God allowed it. Additionally, I find the heart of Oord’s theology to be born out of his love for others and passion for them to know the God of love he so passionate worships. With Amipotence, Oord has provided a key component for what I believe will ultimately be a systematic theology for the problem of evil. Kudos to Thomas for working in this space where many other respected theologian’s have seemingly given up. You may disagree with him, but you have to respect his tenacity in a search for a solution to the problem of evil. Thus far, I have nit heard a more plausible explanation without just relegating God to mystery, which returns is to Augustine’s claim that God is impassable as we can not know a God who is mystery.
Oord does a thorough job of deconstructing the idea of the omnipotence of God. He’s been working on hot this thought of a God who is uncontrolling love for years, and in this work, he coins the term Amipotence to describe God’s heavily influential love constantly working all things for the good of humanity, but ultimately is limited by His nature of love. Oord thoroughly documents his references to support his argument. Folks can disagree, but I find value in his thoughts in that by attempting to solve the problem of evil and the problem of good (why good things happen to bad people) he creates space for people whom have been traumatized or hurt and have wondered why an omnipotent God allowed it. Additionally, I find the heart of Oord’s theology to be born out of his love for others and passion for them to know the God of love he so passionate worships. With Amipotence, Oord has provided a key component for what I believe will ultimately be a systematic theology for the problem of evil. Kudos to Thomas for working in this space where many other respected theologian’s have seemingly given up. You may disagree with him, but you have to respect his tenacity in a search for a solution to the problem of evil. Thus far, I have nit heard a more plausible explanation without just relegating God to mystery, which returns is to Augustine’s claim that God is impassable as we can not know a God who is mystery.
April 29, 2023
This book offers a thought provoking alternative to the widely accepted view that God is “omnipotent”. I’ve always struggled with reconciling the all powerful God with the absolute senseless acts of evil that happen today and throughout history. I just can’t get over why a good, loving and, all-powerful God would allow horrific mass shootings (and other evils but these recent mass shootings have been on my mind) to happen. I read this book in 4 days. It definitely left me with more questions, however, now I have an alternative to describe God’s power. As I continue to read the scriptures and study I will be thinking about how this concept fits in and aligns with the overall narrative and experience of my Christian faith and theology.
September 15, 2023
Very important and groundbreaking book for theology, Christian ministry and care. What we believe and say definitively about God has lasting implications for care, ministry and witness. Oord presents a strong biblical and philosophical case for why the classical sense of God's omnipotence (as total authoritarian power) must die while still holding to the essential nature of God's love as the Redeemer of all things. Where he could do more work is in highlighting the new complications and specific challenges that this view creates for faithful Christians to be able to interact with it, especially if this is a new lense of perspective for some. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book and others in the field of Open and Relational Theology.
July 28, 2025
My rating for this book is based on how it’s written, not what it says. I really wanted to dive into Oord’s ideas on amipotence. “Diving in” isn’t possible in a small book that’s based on repetition, however.
Every chapter (there are only 5) follows this pattern:
My hypothesis is x. X is my hypothesis. I’m going to explain my hypothesis, which is x. Here’s why I think x is correct. X is correct. I have shown you how x is correct. In summary, X is my hypothesis, and X is correct. Therefore, my hypothesis is correct.
Oord has mastered the skill that freshmen college students strive for: when you haven’t written enough to meet the word count, just reword what you’ve already written and hope nobody notices.
Every chapter (there are only 5) follows this pattern:
My hypothesis is x. X is my hypothesis. I’m going to explain my hypothesis, which is x. Here’s why I think x is correct. X is correct. I have shown you how x is correct. In summary, X is my hypothesis, and X is correct. Therefore, my hypothesis is correct.
Oord has mastered the skill that freshmen college students strive for: when you haven’t written enough to meet the word count, just reword what you’ve already written and hope nobody notices.
May 12, 2023
Essential reading for anyone serious about faith.
Thomas Jay Oord’s concept of Amipotence as opposed to omnipotence of God answers so many objections to the idea of God that we ignore this book at our own peril. If relying on “mystery" to explain the inexplicable doesn’t sit well with you, Dr. Oord’s work offers a much better option. If the problem of evil and God’s seeming unwillingness to do anything about it ruffles your feathers, here is a viable alternative. For these reasons and others, this book is powerful and important. Don’t miss it!
Thomas Jay Oord’s concept of Amipotence as opposed to omnipotence of God answers so many objections to the idea of God that we ignore this book at our own peril. If relying on “mystery" to explain the inexplicable doesn’t sit well with you, Dr. Oord’s work offers a much better option. If the problem of evil and God’s seeming unwillingness to do anything about it ruffles your feathers, here is a viable alternative. For these reasons and others, this book is powerful and important. Don’t miss it!
February 29, 2024
I appreciate Oord's courageous and cogent analysis of the shortcomings of classical views of omnipotence, and I found Oord's alternative view (amipotence) compelling. I agree that God's sovereignty and God's action-in-the-world must be grounded in love, not power.
I'm not sold on amipotence as Oord defines it, though. For my more critical analysis, I refer you to my podcast: Surprising God (where I will soon be discussing some of my objections with Thomas).
For here I'll just say: anyone who reads Oord's work will benefit (even if they do not agree with everything Tom proposes).
I'm not sold on amipotence as Oord defines it, though. For my more critical analysis, I refer you to my podcast: Surprising God (where I will soon be discussing some of my objections with Thomas).
For here I'll just say: anyone who reads Oord's work will benefit (even if they do not agree with everything Tom proposes).
June 16, 2023
Surprisingly accessible and compelling! The biblical “deconstruction” was particularly interesting, though the philosophical qualifications chapter made me go cross eyed a few times. I do still believe that belief in God does require some surrender to mystery, which Oord seems to resent.
Overall, I found Oord’s argument for amipotence really valid and ultimately very meaningful. This book has definitely changed the way I think about divine love and power.
Overall, I found Oord’s argument for amipotence really valid and ultimately very meaningful. This book has definitely changed the way I think about divine love and power.
August 25, 2023
Professor Oord of Northwind Seminary examines the problem of theodicy (why a loving God allows evil things to happen) by dissecting the traditional idea of God's omnipotence. He calls us to revisit long-standing assumptions about the nature of God and consider the consequences of setting aside orthodox concepts such as God's omnipotence and omniscience.
January 6, 2024
This may be Oord’s version of Charles Hartshorne’s classic “Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes” except Oord’s book is a little more accessible for any reader. Not only does he destroy the notion of omnipotence, but he constructs a vision of divine power that is inspiring, empowering, and makes sense of human experience.
January 7, 2024
Thomas Jay Oord gives a compelling argument to drop the stories and ideas about a controlling god and why if religion wants to live up to its name (to bind, making connections) it should focus and tell stories about a God who is loving and as Oord keep saying in this book love is always un controlling.
May 19, 2025
Prof. Thomas Jay Oord says that the belief most Christians have about the omnipotence of God is wrong and, in fact, harmful. Omnipotence dies from thousands of exceptions to the concept. Instead he believes that a truer concept of God's power is love and so he calls for the theology of "Amipotence," the belief that God's power is manifest in the power of love.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews