Power, Love, and What God Can’t Do: More on Omnipotence With Tom Oord and Chris Lilley

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Randy (00:06):
I'm Randy, the pastor half of the podcast, and my
friend Kyle's a philosopher.
This podcast hostsconversations at the
intersection of philosophy,theology, and spirituality.

Kyle (00:15):
We also invite experts to join us, making public a space
that we've often enjoyed off-airaround the proverbial table
with a good drink at the backcorner of a dark pub.

Randy (00:24):
Thanks for joining us, and welcome to a pastor and a
philosopher walk into a bar.

Kyle (00:36):
So this episode is a little bit unusual for us in
that I do almost all thetalking.
Pretty much all the talking.
Part of the reason for that isthat Randy lost his voice.
You want to say hi, Randy.

Randy (00:46):
Yeah, it works out.
Works out that I don't havemuch to say about this because I
can't really say much aboutthis.
Except for when it cracks,right?
Yeah.
I gotta keep way low and quiet.
A little bit slow too.
A little breathy breathy, yeah.
God damn it.

Kyle (01:02):
Excellent.
Um, so this is anotherconversation about omnipotence.

Randy (01:06):
I probably shouldn't say goddamn it without being right.

Kyle (01:09):
Maybe it fits the I don't know.
Maybe it fits the theme.
So we're talking aboutomnipotence again with Tom Ord.
We had a conversation aboutthis with him, I don't remember
when it was, two years ago,something like that.
You can go back in our feed andfind it, or just look in the
show notes.
And a friend of mine namedChris Lilly, who went to grad
school with me, had said somethings about Tom's view of
omnipotence that were publishedon Tom's website and that I've

(01:33):
found and Chris and I textedback and forth about, and I
thought it would be really coolto have a conversation about
this and really just kind ofnerd out.
And I I approached it with you,Randy, as uh you can join this
or not, which every now and thenwe'll we'll do.
You've had a couple like that.
Uh, and I did it that waybecause I knew it was gonna be
nerdy and I knew it was probablynot gonna be interesting to

(01:54):
everybody that follows thispodcast, and I think
occasionally that's okay.
I don't want to do that all thetime, but every now and then uh
it's nice to be a little bit inyour element as a certain kind
of person.
And Chris and Tom and I are allthat kind of person.
Now, I do think there's likereal uh meat on these bones and
rubber meeting the road in acertain sense when it comes to

(02:17):
how the way you conceive of Godat a fundamental conceptual
level shaping how you orientyourself to the world, what life
means to you at a very basiclevel, what you think your
suffering means, if anything atall, how you're able to look at
your children and tell them goodthings about life.
Um I I mean I think thisactually affects all of that
stuff and a lot more, but a lotof it will probably feel very
nerdy.

(02:37):
And Randy was here for thewhole conversation and and said
very little.
And uh that's okay.

Randy (02:44):
Yeah, I mean, again, I can't say much right now.
However, I I mean my my quicktake on the conversation is I'm
really glad there's people whoare smart enough and dorky
enough to care aboutconversations like that because
I think they are important.
Um I think this conversationthat uh listeners you're gonna
listen you're gonna uh hear andbe a fly in the wall for like I

(03:08):
was, uh I think they are uhalmost essential because our
faith has to at least try tomake sense and be logical.
And when we run into logicalfallacies within our within our
faith tradition, we should nothide from those.
We should actually deal withthose and face those and have
conversation and search thescriptures and seek the spirit

(03:29):
and do all of these things incommunity, which I think this is
how the spirit works andinforms our ideas about who and
what God is.
That being said, I keptimagining this conversation, and
this sounds like a slam on theconversation, and I don't mean
it as such, right?
But um it reminded me of reallysmart people coming to Jesus in

(03:53):
the gospels and trying to getJesus with a gotcha question,
and I don't think you were youwere trying to give Tom or Tom
giving you gotcha questions atall.
I think that was a a genuinegood faith conversation.
But Jesus is so evasive inconversations like this, and

(04:14):
there are conversations similarto this in in the Gospels.
And he always seems to leavethat person and leave many of us
feeling a little bit umdisappointed and a little bit
evasive and a little bit kind oftrying to switch the the
narrative and the conversation.
And I wonder if this notion ofpower, and some of you guys were

(04:35):
doing this a little bit, islike, what is power, you know,
and why is it so important tous?
And why is this concept soessential to having faith in God
and following Jesus?
And for me where I sit today, Iwant it to make sense, but I
don't need it to.
If that if that it's and I andthe reason that I say that is

(04:58):
because my faith doesn't startin it doesn't rest on it being
logical, even though I want itto be, and I think it mostly is.
And I say mostly withgenuineness.
My faith rests and is kind ofstands on the person of Christ.
And that means that I'm gonnahave to be humble enough to hold

(05:20):
mystery with some level ofcomfort and familiarity in my
faith walk.
And for me, that just means I'mprobably not smart enough to
partake participate in thatconversation without f sounding
like a huge dumbass.
And also it might be becauseI'm not as smart as you guys,
but it might just be becausealso I don't think that's

(05:42):
essential to me following Jesus.
Not even close.
Yeah.
Um and so when it comes down tothat, I'm just concerned about
what it means for me to followJesus with my kids and with my
wife and with my church and withmy neighbors and community.
And then, you know, throwingback a mock tail while listening

(06:03):
to you guys talk about somereally important things that
people can do.
Can mock tails be thrown back?

Kyle (06:08):
Maybe they can't.

Randy (06:09):
I'm reaching here.
But all that said, there's aplace for the conversation.
I'm glad you had it, and I'mglad many of our listeners will
be interested in it.
And at the same time, I'm okaywith it being unresolved, and I
know you are as well.

Kyle (06:22):
Yeah, yeah.
In fact, I find ever Icompletely agree with everything
you just said, and I think it'sinsightful and generous.
And I mean that entirely.
Um, so thanks for that.
And listener, you know, give ita shot.
Maybe you'll fall on my side ofthis, maybe you won't.
Um, but yeah, I really do thinkthis stuff, Matt.
Like, they I'm not comparinganything that happens in this
conversation to this, except ina very, very loose analogy.

(06:43):
So I want to disclaimer withthat.
But like the the uh Nobel forPhysics was just awarded to
somebody for doing uh work onquantum tunneling.
Uh none of that means anythingto me, right?
Any of our lived experiences.
But my God, how important is itthat someone is doing that and
is getting the funding needed tofigure that stuff out, which
may have very significantdownstream consequences for all

(07:04):
of our lives that we can'tpossibly envision.
Yeah, but that's not one-to-onetrue for theology.
And yet at the same time, Ithink it is important for the
church that someone in it isthinking at this level about
these complexities and thesedifficulties and trying to make
sense of how they do make adifference to the people in the
peew's lives, because they do.
Yes.
You know they do, right?

(07:25):
You've seen people strugglingover these concepts and not
having any idea what to do withit.

Randy (07:29):
And they don't matter to you until your life's hanging in
the balance, or a loved one'slife is hanging in the balance,
or somebody some you know, someperson who doesn't believe in
God said something thatshattered your worldview and
your your your spirituality,that's when they matter.
And those are really importanttimes to have actually some
context and some foundation ofthese conversations, is what I'm

(07:52):
trying to say.

Kyle (07:52):
Yeah, well, I appreciate that.
Uh yeah, I'm interested in anyfeedback anybody might have
about this.
Do you like to hear more ofthese or less of these?
I would I would like to know.

Tom (08:26):
You know what?
I'm also happy to be here.

Kyle (08:31):
If either of you are drinking anything you want to
tell us about, uh feel free.

Chris (08:35):
So uh in honor of uh being from going to school with
you in Milwaukee, I'm drinking aLakefront brewery, Oktoberfest,
uh in honor of the season.
And uh it just the weatherstarted to change, and I
thought, you know what?
I think I just need something.
So switching to Oktoberfest andscotches and gearing up for
theology beer camp.
So um yeah, it's delicious andit reminds me of uh hanging out

(08:56):
after after seminar at uh atLakefront.
So yeah, awesome.

Randy (09:00):
It is possible to attend theology beer camp without
drinking.
It is, but they don't reallymake it NA friendly, that's they
make it difficult.
Yeah, yeah.

Tom (09:08):
Free-flowing beer for sure.
I don't have anything rightnow.
I usually drink a GatoradeZero, but I just got down there
on theater, and so love it, loveit.

Kyle (09:17):
Well, I asked you both on here to have a chat about
omnipotence, and we're gonna getto that.
We've talked to Tom about thatonce before.
So, listeners who haven't heardthat, look in the show notes.
There's a link there to that.
If you have heard that, you'llknow I had some issues with
Tom's take on omnipotence.
Maybe we'll get back into someof those.
But I wanted to invite Chrison.
Chris and I go way back.

(09:37):
We went to grad schooltogether.
Chris was in the well, you kindof straddled the theology and
philosophy departments at atMarquette.

Chris (09:44):
Yeah, I was a dual dual competency program.

Kyle (09:47):
Yeah, yeah, I remember that.
So we took quite a few classestogether and we also hung out
and drank beer.
Yeah.
Good time.
Talked about God a lot.
Um, and then I I realized,Chris, that you had written a
thing, uh, a little blogblogish-like thing, in response
to Tom's view of omnipotence,and I thought that was really
intriguing.
Yeah.
And I also know that you've beenon an interesting theological
journey since our days in gradschool where we would argue

(10:08):
about determinism.
Uh so I want to hear a littlebit about that.
Um, and first I just want youboth to introduce yourselves and
kind of share um, I don't know,your theological background.
I'll let you interpret that howyou want to, and in particular,
how you got to the place youcurrently are on this topic of
God's power.

Chris (10:26):
Hey, go ahead, Chris.
Well, uh, yeah, like uh likeKyle said, my name is uh Chris
Lilly.
Um I am currently a postulantfor holy orders in the Episcopal
Church.
So um uh God willing and the umand the people consenting, I'll
be ordained a deacon in about ayear from now, and then a
priest about six months afterthat.
So um how I ended up in theEpiscopal Church is uh I never

(10:50):
would have believed it.
Um I if anything to make medoubt um determinism and
exhaustive and providence.
Like this this is just tooscrewy of a ride, like there's
there's no way, you know.
So um, but uh yeah, so when Iwhen I knew um when I knew Kyle,
uh I was we I was going I wasin the PhD program at Marquette
and in theology and philosophy.

(11:12):
And I I I think it wassomething of a moderate
conservative, uh maybe slightlyprogressive evangelical, still a
lot of unexamined premises andthings like this.
And I at the time I was Idiscovered reform theology,
which I'm not sure if it's agood thing or not.
But before then, I didn'treally have a theology.
Um, I just dove when I went toseminary, I went to Prince and

(11:33):
Sim, um I worked with uh Venslovand Hasting, as as uh that Tom
whom Tom knows.
And and uh I I dove into a lotof advanced classes, but what I
actually thought about theology,I couldn't tell you.
I just knew a lot about God andyou know wanted to learn more
about from Aquinas.
And um and and from there, I uhI I discovered I discovered

(11:53):
reform theology.
And for me, it uh it connecteda lot of dots.
There was a sort of richintellectualism um combined with
uh the idea of having um thisclassical theism that I was
enamored with at the time, and Iwanted to explore that.
Um so when Kyle knew me, Ithink we had some really
interesting discussions.
Actually, my favorite storyabout Kyle, if I may briefly, is
uh I in one of our uh seminars,I think you I think you were

(12:16):
with with Dr.
Michael Reen, you were, I thinkyou were you were either
auditing or part of it.
But I gave a presentation, andum I I think I was assigned some
random chapter, and it was itwas a really boring topic.
It was just some really likeyou know epistemological, just
low-level stuff.
And and I gave my presentationand Kyle raised his hand, and
you said, uh, you asked a couplequestions, and you said, and

(12:38):
also I'm just wondering why weshould care.
Um, you know, that's well,Kyle, it's because I was
assigned this really excitingchapter, so maybe that's why I
shouldn't care.
So I always appreciate thatthat sort of that sort of
feedback from Kyle.
Um but but uh but from but fromthere, um I I moved to uh so
from Milwaukee, I moved to uhMinnesota.

(12:58):
At the time I was still workingon my PhD, and um I got
connected with uh BethlehemBaptist Church, which was John
Piper's church.
And I got sucked into thatecosystem, which was really
interesting.
Um, but it was there that myfaith began to be really tested.
Um I began to encounter thingsthat didn't match my experience,
my moral intuitions, especiallyregarding LGBT inclusion, women

(13:21):
in leadership, and my idea ofGod really began to become
tested.
Um, right before the pandemichit, I was uh teaching the adult
um education courses at at thechurch, uh teaching the
Calvinism class.
And it went John Piper used toteach it, and then it went to
me.
So I was the one.
So people showed up and said,We love John Calvin.

(13:41):
And I said, Well, I mean, notJohn Calvin, John Piper.
Sorry.
So what's the difference?
It was basically the samething.
But uh, you know, it but peoplepeople showed up, and and I I
think as I started to teach it,it was one thing to to theorize
about this stuff, but toactually say and to say, here's
um, there are elect andnon-elect, there are reprobates,

(14:02):
and this is how um hell works.
It it really started to shiftthe way I thought about God, and
and I I don't think I couldhold that view anymore.
Um uh and right around thepandemic, that's when I think at
many in the church I began towake up to some of the political
issues, capitulation to certainuh political views I found
anthetical to Christ, um COVIDdenialism, vaccine skepticism.

(14:24):
Uh it all came to a real head.
And uh um and one of the issuesI think theologically, I think
when I was teaching, I one ofthe things that challenged me
was um when I talked aboutteaching people about the elect.
My daughter had just been born,and I uh I had this thought as
I was holding her one nightbefore bed, um, what if she's

(14:45):
not elect?
And what would I do?
And I remember at that moment II knew exactly what I would do.
I would fall on my knees and Iwould beg God to take me in her
place.
And um I knew all the righttheological answers.
My friends and mentors told methat, well, you don't you don't
know what you're saying.

(15:05):
Maybe even the fact that you'resaying that means you're not
really elect, but it just didn'tmake any sense to me.
I couldn't take it anymore.
This wasn't the God I knew.
This wasn't God in JesusChrist, and I um and uh so in
2021 I just dropped, I I leftthe church, and uh I didn't
really know what to do.
Um, Tom, I have to say that uhduring those times when I didn't

(15:27):
my faith was shattered, I Ireturned to some of your works.
And I think one of the one ofthe best things I can say about
you, Tom, is that you talk abouta God that I want to believe
in, a God who's worth believingin.
Um and uh I wasn't sure whatwhat I thought.
I still had you know a lot, alot of Thomistic uh metaphysics
in the back of my mind, but umyou encouraged me to think more

(15:48):
critically about God and howdoes that fit with what I'm
observing politically and in theworld.
So uh that led me to uh wantingto be involved in a church, and
uh I got connected with theEpiscopal Church, and uh because
they have a really good mix ofhistory and and then also some
some really nice uh um liturgy,but also connection to to free

(16:08):
thought.
You can actually thinkcritically in the Episcopal
Church.
And uh when I was there, I Ibegan to uh worship, and one of
the my priests said, I thinkmaybe you're called to something
a bit more than just sitting inthe pew.
So I went through thediscernment process, and uh
that's where I am now.

Kyle (16:24):
Thanks, man.
I really appreciate that.

Chris (16:26):
Yeah, sorry, I was a bit long-winded, but it's been it's
been a wild ride.

Kyle (16:30):
No, I'm gonna come back to it a little bit because I want
to know more specifics about howyour view of God has changed,
and that's gonna impact whatwe're here to talk about, which
is omniscience.
But first, I want Tom tointroduce himself and say
whatever you want to say abouthow you got to the theology of
God that you got to.
I know that's a long story.

Tom (16:45):
Yeah, uh, maybe the short end of it, short, is that I grew
up in a very pious family.
We were part of the Church ofthe Nazarene, which is a
Wesleyan holiness tradition, andso we had a free will theology,
but it was uh not all thatsophisticated in terms of
thinking through all theimplications.
The Church of the Nazareneisn't known for being

(17:06):
intellectually sophisticated.
Um by the time I was in collegeI was uh an a hardcore street
evangelist, which was CampusCrusade for Christ.
And um then I took a course inphilosophy of religion that made
me question my grounds forbelief in God at all.

(17:27):
And I became an atheist or anagnostic for a while.
I returned to belief in Godbased upon my intuitions about
meaning and love and I juststarted began slowly re
structuring, rebuilding my faithover time, and that meant um

(17:49):
rejecting some you know commonideas of my youth, probably
common ideas among most uhtheists in America, uh and
eventually to something I callopen and relational theology.

Kyle (18:02):
Do you want to define that real quick for for those who
might be able to do that?

Tom (18:04):
Yeah, openness means that uh God moves through time with
us and the future is open notonly for us but for God.
So God not only can'tpredestine but doesn't foreknow
what's gonna happen.
And relational is an emphasisupon this giving and receiving
God, so God who's passable touse the classic language.
And then in addition to thosethings, you know, I emphasize

(18:27):
creaturely freedom and agency, Ideny God's omnipotence and uh a
few other things, but thatthose are some of the the big
ones.

Kyle (18:36):
So yeah, good.
And this all for you comes froma place of viewing God as in
essentially loving.

Tom (18:42):
Right.
That's my primary motivation.
I'm not saying that my o myattempt to describe God's love
is the only way to do it, butobviously I think it's
preferable to the other optionsI know, so that's what I'm
laying on the table.

Kyle (18:56):
Yeah, totally.
And this leads you to the viewthat anything that is
incompatible with God's love,defined in a particular way,
cannot be a real attribute ofGod.
And that would includeomnipotence.
Good.
Yeah.
Um, so I want to get youquickly to because we talked up,
we spent a whole episode onthis, and I want to kind of
start from just after thatconversation if we can.
But quickly define omnipotence.

(19:18):
I know that's difficult to do.
You give like three or fourdifferent definitions of it in
the whole book you wrote aboutit.
So define like what it hasmeant primarily, classically,
and what you don't like aboutthat, and then I'll I'll give
Chris the opportunity to jump inon what he thinks you got
wrong.

Tom (19:34):
Yeah.
Well, I think if we look at thetradition, it's hard to find
really precise definitions ofomnipotence in the tradition.
It's kind of just assumed.
I try to identify threemeanings that I find, and I give
quotes from major thinkers inthe past who say those things or
something close to them.
One is the idea that God canjust do anything.

(19:57):
Another is the idea that Godliterally exerts all the power,
so omnipotence means all powerin that particular way.
And that's a view that if JohnCalvin didn't have it, at least
some of his followers had thatview.
And then the third one issomething like God is able to
control others, where the wordcontrol means to act as a

(20:19):
sufficient cause.
So God can act in a such a waythat single-handedly determines
an outcome.
And those three kinds ofdefinitions of omnipotence
aren't the only ones, but Ithink they're prominent, and I
reject all three.

Kyle (20:33):
Yeah.
And I guess we can get intosome of the details of why as we
as we go on, but a lot of thatis unpacked in our first
conversation.
So, Chris, which parts of thatappeal to you and which parts of
that don't appeal to youanymore?

Chris (20:48):
Um uh do you say anymore?
Is that what you said?

Kyle (20:51):
Well, I know that well, maybe I should put that
differently.
Which parts of that do appealto you now that might not have
used to, and which parts do youstill have reservations about?

Chris (20:59):
So uh let me start out by saying that um that uh my
criticisms here are reallyfriendly.
Um I really like what Tom'sdoing with his view of
omnipotence.
I practice saying omnipotencebecause it's always it's like
omni without the knee.
It's like um it's omnipotence.
So I think I think I got it.
Um but I think that when whenwe think about omnipotence and

(21:20):
as you mentioned it throughouthistory and throughout
theological history, it's thisconcept that's uh disembodied.
It's this concept that's reallyjust uh done with metaphysical
considerations that isn't reallyconnected to the implications
for the real world.
And uh I think Tom does areally good job of drawing our
attention to what does this meanif we're gonna say that God is
omnipotent, can do all things.

(21:41):
And like those threedefinitions you mentioned, um, I
think there are uh someproblems that come depending on
how you how you understandomnipotence.
The second thing I would say isthat you know, in Tom's work,
especially in chapter two, youdo a really, really good job of
showing that whateveromnipotence means, it's really
complicated.
And there are and there are alot of you list like, you know,

(22:04):
I like you know, hundreds of orat least dozens of not hundreds
of ways that it has to bequalified.
I think that's all really good.
Where I am, I guess, where Ihesitate and where I'm less
convinced as someone, because ascoming at this from someone who
may want to hold some idea ofomnipotence, is that it's not
clear to me that that shows wehave to abandon it.
You mentioned a lot of waysthat it has to be qualified.

(22:26):
And it's not clear to me thatthat generates the necessity of
saying we have to kill it.
Because you're pretty strong inyour book.
Uh you say, like it's time to,I mean, I was waiting for you
know, pardon the phrase, likethe the final takedown.
Where's where's the where's thefinishing boot?
And uh I I guess I guess Ididn't find it.
It was sort of just it was sortof assumed.
I'm I feel like I'm missing apremise there.

(22:47):
So maybe uh that's where Iwould start.

Kyle (22:49):
Why is it dead?
Yeah.
Rather than just qualify well,qualified, because one of the
things we talked about, Tom, Idon't know if you've it's been
like two years since we talkedabout this, I don't expect you
to remember this at all.
But one of the objections I hadwas if your objection this is
something Chris talked abouttoo, if your objection is that
the concept is incoherent, Idon't think you've made that
case.
And I I tried to give you somenotions of omnipotence, a couple

(23:12):
of which you agreed with, thatit I think they're omnipotence.
You think maybe we should callthem something else.
Perfectly coherent ideas that Idon't think have necessarily
the baggage that you rightlycritique of of a lot of those
concepts.
So Chris and I, I think are onthe same page here.
There is a notion, maybe asimplified notion compared, or
maybe it in some ways asimplified notion, and in some

(23:34):
ways a more complex notion,depending on which audience
you're you're thinking abouthere.
But like there's aphilosophical notion that I
think is very coherent and evendefensible.
And then there that notion mayor may not be held by the
average person in the pew, butI'm not sure that's like a
critique.
The conclusion of that is notthat therefore omnipotence is
dead, it's that therefore weneed better theological
education.

Tom (23:53):
Well, and I think this is actually an important point.
It's not my main point, butit's an important one.
And that is um, yes, I thinkphilosophers can carefully lay
out a view of omnipotence,taking into account all of the
kinds of qualifications that Ihave listed there, most of them

(24:15):
logical, some of themontological, some having to do
with the divine nature, somehaving to do with the nature of
time, etc.
etc.
Um But there are somephilosophers who think that we
ought to affirm omnipotencewithout qualifications.
They're in the minority, so letme admit that quickly.
There we we usually associatethem with Descartes, but there's

(24:37):
this small minority ofphilosophers who think that
omnipotence is coherent withoutqualification.
And and this is the main pointI want to make here I haven't
done a survey, but enough timeI've spent in church and talking
with people and arguing on theinternet, there's lots of people
who aren't in the academy whothink that God can do anything

(25:00):
that's illogical.
And that's part of my audiencewith this book.
And I think many of thosepeople portray God's power in
ways that that make no sense toacademics, but well, at least
the majority of academics.
But they have great influenceon those who end up not

(25:23):
believing in God because of theproblem of evil, divine
hiddenness, or something else.
So I do think that's importantto note that the major maybe not
the majority, but a largenumber of people who are quote
untrained, um, aren't gonna findthe qualified omnipotence
convincing?

Kyle (25:40):
Chris, any response to that?

Chris (25:43):
Yeah, so um I think I just echo Kyle here.
I think I think I would agreethat most people I talk to
probably wouldn't have thatunderstanding, a nuanced
understanding.
What I'm wondering is how isthat really different from most
other theological concepts thatare very sophisticated?
Um, and does the fact that itneeds to be qualified um
disqualify it?

(26:03):
Or um and if if I may, I mightI have an example from from your
own work, if if I was I wasgoing to bring so for those of
you know who don't know, Tom isyou've heard of the love guru.
Tom is the love theologian.
And uh I have your book, uhPlurriform Love.
Um, you've done a lot of workon defining love pretty
accurately and clearly, and youhave a definition of love that

(26:24):
is um acting intentionally inrelational response to God and
others to promote overallwell-being.
Each of those phrases you'veargued for extensively.
You've argued for in a lot ofyour books that I've read,
you've argued against manynumber of theologians who define
love in different ways.
Um people have used love inways that harm others.

(26:44):
I was told that to love queerpeople meant to um not affirm
their identity.

Kyle (26:50):
Right.

Chris (26:50):
Um, but to me, the fact that it has to be qualified in
dozens and really carefully byreally, really, you know, ivory
tower academics like Aquinas,Augustine, Tom Ord, doesn't
disqualify it as a concept.
I think we just need to beclear of what we mean.
So I'm wondering why wouldn'tlove be a candidate for being
overly qualified to death?
And I and and secondary to thatis like like Kyle mentioned,

(27:13):
how why is this not just afailure of education rather than
of the concept?

Tom (27:17):
Yeah, good questions.
I think and I haven't thoughtthis through carefully, y'all.
So I think I would make adistinction between clarify and
qualify.

Chris (27:29):
Okay.

Tom (27:30):
I think my definition of what love clarifies what I think
love is.
And it really, at least in mostinstances I hang out with
people, it sort of resonateswith their intuitions.
In fact, that's one of the mostcommon uh responses I get when
I give presentations, is likepeople hear me talk about love
and they say, yeah, that fitsthe way I think of things.
Whereas omnipotence, I think,would be different because uh to

(27:55):
many people at least, it meansimplicitly something that's
unqualified uh in terms ofpower.
And I think if we gave aprecise definition like you know
you find in analytic theology,for instance, most people
wouldn't say, Oh, that fits myintuitions.
They would say, Oh, no, no,that's I don't even know what
you're talking about here.

(28:16):
And I could give some examplesif we want to if we want to do
that.
But um I I I I I hear yourpoint, and I think there's some
validity to it in that I thinkwhatever concepts we have, we we
should clarify them and have asmuch precision as we can.
But in the case of omnipotence,the word has typically meant

(28:38):
for for many people, includingprofessional theologians in
history, something that isunqualified, except perhaps
logically, but unqualified inlots of other ways, you know,
relation to the divine nature,time, etc.
So I agree, yes, clarify, but Idon't think the love power uh

(29:00):
analogy quite works.

Chris (29:02):
I guess as you explain, I mean the clarification
qualification, I'd love to maybedefine the difference more
precisely there.
Um, but it seemed like what yousaid is is that um one one of
the clarifying factors and oneof the uh it would be whether or
not it resonates with people.
And and I'm wondering, um, andand I think that it's hard for

(29:24):
me to to use that as anassessment because I talk to all
sorts of people as a you knowas as in in the in in ministry,
and some people really, reallyresonate with the idea of a of a
of a God who can do anything.
And whether or not that's goodor not, I'm just wondering how
is how that's assessed.

Tom (29:40):
So it's a fairly fair response, yeah.

Chris (29:43):
So which again doesn't invalidate, but for me, what I
keep coming back to when I readyour critique is that it has to
be qualified or clarified, andthen you jump to therefore we
should, you know, it dies thedeath.
And I think in your response tome is is that well, it it it it
it's not the same as.
Um online, you said it's notthe same as what most people

(30:03):
think.

Kyle (30:04):
Yeah.

Chris (30:04):
And even if I agree with that, I still feel like there's
a missing premise there.
Like the amount to which it'squalified, the amount to which
it doesn't resonate, um, thatthat would prompt our the
argument that um we shouldabandon it.
And I guess I'm looking for uhthe uh the takedown move.

Tom (30:22):
I think that's your strongest point, Chris.
Uh I think, at least this is myassessment of your argument.
Um, I think your strongestpoint is that the word
omnipotence in in careful in inin the sophisticated hands,
careful minds, whatever, in thein the the in the hands of an
expert could be so so wiselycrafted to avoid the problems

(30:50):
that I mentioned in that chapterdying the death of a thousand
qualifications.
And so I'm I am probably toostrong in saying omnipotence
dies because we have all thesequalifications, because it could
still live, but just it wouldbe highly nuanced, you know.
Actually, let me let me readsomething just just to

(31:12):
illustrate this from uh aninfluential analytic uh essay uh
from Fredoso and Flint.
So this is a pretty classic uhessay they wrote on maximal
power.
But listen, this is I I just togive our listeners an idea of
what I mean, this is what theyhow this is how to define
omnipotence.
S is omnipotent at time t inworld w, if and only if for any

(31:39):
state of affairs P and a worldtype for SLs, such that P is not
a member of the L's, if thereis a world asterisk, such that
L's is true in both world andworld asterisk asterisk, I just
can't say that word very well.
And world asterisk shares thesame history as world at times t

(32:03):
and at t in world asterisk,someone actualizes P, then S has
the power at T in world W toactualize P.
Now, obviously, those lettersare standing for a variety of
things about possibilities,times, world, etc.
And so if if I had all of theadded all those right words in

(32:24):
there, it might be a littleclearer to the average person.
No, but even if we did that,that still is a very highly
nuanced, qualified definition.
Um, and I think you know itprobably works as a definition
for omnipotence.
But I I look at that and I say,well, what's the advantage of

(32:46):
staying with the word?
Why stick with that word ifit's a cause problems for so
many people around the questionsof the problem of evil and the
problem of divine hiddenness andeven you know biblical
inerrancy?
And then B, and this is myargument in the first chapter.
If it's not a word we find inscripture, and so I mean, I'm

(33:10):
still a person who wants to stayattuned to the scripture.
Since I don't the scriptures isnot requiring it, then uh it
may not die the death, but it'son life support.
It's life support.
Uh what do you think of that?

Kyle (33:27):
So we did something similar in our sorry, Chris.
Real quick, in our previousconversation, I I mentioned to
you a certain definition thatactually came from Mike Green,
who we were talking aboutearlier.
And if you read it written out,it's very much like that one.
But there's a way to cash itout in sort of layman's terms,
which I try to do then.
That makes it sound a littlemore intuitive.
And you actually agreed with itat the time and said, Oh,
that's amipotence.

(33:47):
So there might be a semanticsthing here going on, you know.

Tom (33:52):
Um I want to say you bring up a good point in that any
alternative I am to offer, I'vegot to also clarify, right?
Right.
So there's gonna beclarifications if it's gonna be
uh helpful to those who arethinking very critically and
seriously.
And and I I definitely grantthat.

Kyle (34:10):
Yeah.
Chris, go ahead.

Chris (34:12):
Uh well, first of all, I was going to say uh, you know,
the the definition you read.
I mean, I just preached on thatlast week.
I think it's pretty that'llpreach.
I think I'll recall probablythere.
Say something.
Come on.
Uh but no, I think you'reright.
And I think as I as you werereading this, you know, when you
when you put it in the reallyabstract language of analytic
philosophy, I think, you know, Ithink as Kyle mentioned, you

(34:33):
can phrase these in differentterms.
But uh yeah, I I guess uh youryour point is taken.
What I what I what is thinkingof, and I think the your
question of why should we stickwith it, what I think is lurking
in the background of this thatI think maybe is unexamined, is
these aren't concepts in avacuum.
Um when I read your critique ofomnipotence, it sounds like to

(34:53):
me, like I said this in myarticle, is that it sounds like
you're you what you want to dois give an imminent critique.
That is, omnipotence fails onits own terms.
It's not granted open andrelational theism or process
theism, omnipotence fails.
Because, you know, as aThomist, again, I don't know
where I am in the at the moment,but I'm reading this from a
Thomist lens, and most of theThomist friends that I know of

(35:15):
would say, well, you you can'tjust abandon it because that's a
necessary um uh uh conclusionfrom the nature of God as pure
act.
That's what it means to be havehave unlimited uh power.
And all the ways you parse itare simply saying what it would
mean for that to act.
Um so for example, they wouldsay, um, you list all these

(35:36):
different things that God cando.
And reading it, it's a lot.
But I might suggest from aThomas perspective, they all all
boil down to the same thing.
Um, God can't do things thataren't perfections on God's own
being.
Um so for example, if I if Iwere to say, uh to me, it's like
someone saying, uh, look, look,a married bachelor uh can't

(35:59):
have a spouse.
Look at all the things amarried bachelor can't do.
A married bachelor can't havecoffee with a spouse, a married
bachelor can walk a dog.
I mean, you can list a thousanddifferent things.
And and even and I mean I mean,and uh, but really what you're
trying to say is this is what itmeans to be a bachelor.
And so um uh I guess what whatI'm wondering in the background

(36:19):
is is if you're really trying toshoot to the heart of uh
critiquing classical theism, andthen when it to me, when it
comes across as you youcritiquing sort of like an
offshoot of classical theism, Ithink there's a disconnect
there, if that makes sense.

Tom (36:33):
Yeah, I I first of all, I want to agree with you that um
at least in those who use theword omnipotent well, they do so
in the context of a largermetaphysical framework.
And Thomism has a prettysophisticated one, pretty
impressive one, one that I thinkis pretty bad.

(36:56):
And I've written this day,used, you know, I've written a
lot of things about why I don'tthink God is pure act without
potentiality and all that sortof stuff.
But I grant that omnipotencecould work in this broader
framework.
And I'm coming with aparticular broader framework I
call open relational thought,influenced by Alfred North

(37:17):
Whitehead and lots of otherthings.
So yeah, um, I I agree withthat.
Then of course, we have tostand back a little bit further
and try to judge the relativevalue of the frameworks and and
then of course I do that in someplaces, but maybe not so much
in this book that that we'reresponding to here.
Uh so yeah, I I I'm inagreement with you there.

(37:39):
You it kind of reminded me,Chris, of um the criticism of my
friend Bill Hasker, who's ananalytic philosopher of
religion.
When he criticizes me, he helikes to say, well, Tom's
qualifications all boil down tological qualifications.

(38:00):
But what he means by that isthat he assumes all kinds of
ontological and metaphysicalclaims about God.
And if you share all of his mymetaphysical claims about God,
then there's all these logicalimplications, right?
But like, you know, forinstance, he and I both think
God experienced time moment bymoment, uh, and so therefore,

(38:22):
it's just logical that God can'tchange the past because there's
no chance, you know, and so itjust makes perfect sense.
But a classical theist like myuh friend Kevin Tempe, he thinks
God can change the past becausehe's got a different
metaphysics, so it's not alogical thing.
So um, so just saying it'slogical, uh logical that I'm

(38:43):
just denying logical uhcontradictions doesn't go nearly
far enough in cashing out allthe ontological and metaphysical
claims.
And I think that also appliesto the Thomistic uh example you
gave.
Yeah, except yeah.

Chris (38:59):
By the way, I'm not even saying Thomas is right.
I mean, I think uh I know that.
Yeah, I like there's uh youknow, there like Thomas, you
know, he he hedges a lot.
Um and uh um so it's more justhow would I read this?
Uh Kyle, I I think I've beentalking a lot, I apologize.
But what I might say is that asI read your argument, I think
where you get really strong,where I stood up and took

(39:20):
notice, where you get to evil.
And what what what I mightsuggest for you know, and um is
uh as I read it, and what itmight to me what's more
effective is it's not thatomnipotence is is incoherent,
it's perfectly coherent andperfectly monstrous.
And so that that might be sowhich might be the the uh I
guess the the the kill shot, ifyou might ask, as it were.

(39:41):
So which I think is is um uhthat's sort of my position now
on Thomas.
I think to me, I think hissystem is perfectly coherent.
I just don't know that it'sGod.
And so that that's that's sortof the question I have at the
back of my mind as I as I readas I read you.

Kyle (39:56):
So this is fascinating to me, Chris, knowing you I mean,
we haven't I don't know when thelast time we we we we like tag
or you know, we'll message eachother sometimes back and forth.
It used to be on Twitter, butI'm not on Twitter anymore.
So no, no.
We'll text and whatever, butlike back in the day, you were
you were hardcore, man.
And uh I remember an exchangeyou had with Greg Boyd on on the

(40:18):
old Twitter one time that wenton for quite a while, and you
were like hardcore defendingthis um secondary causal
distinction in Aquinas or orwhatever.
I mean, you drank that.
I don't want to call itKool-Aid because it's way more
sophisticated.
You drank like that thathigh-end wine, yeah.
The way you're pretty hard.
Um so like what I mean, yousaid a little bit of what

(40:40):
happened, but yeah, to to drivesomething to the point where now
you're willing to say that'swhatever that is, I I have an
immense deal of respect forThomas Aquinas.
I wouldn't go so far as to saythat whatever he was talking
about was not God.
Um, and I never loved him asmuch as you did.
So I want you to explain alittle more uh about how you're

(41:02):
willing to say that.
And how do you conceive of Godnow such that that can't be what
it is?

Chris (41:07):
Sure.
No, I appreciate the question.
Um I think um during duringgrad school and and in in those
days, um, even before kids, kidschanged the way it doesn't
necessarily mean you have tohave kids to change your mind,
but I think having childrenreally just shifted the way I
viewed the world.
And um I think I've talked toTom about this over email, but

(41:29):
for me, it was almost uh alogical game.
Um giving given certainpremises, how can I make it
work?
Uh that's what it was for mewith secondary causality.
And it was fun for me to makeit fit um with uh with Greg
Boyd.
I uh I really enjoy Greg Boyd.
What I was pushing back on himwas that he was critiquing

(41:50):
Thomas, but what he did is hecited from the part of the Summa
that Thomas was disagreeingwith and and didn't make the
distinction.
So which is again as so whicheasy, you know, it's a mistake
to make, but but I I was, youknow, I was I was I was in my my
uh angsty grudge phase.
But for me, thinking aboutthese terms and how they apply

(42:10):
to the real world um reallyshifted how I is that really the
God I can worship?
I uh again, I think I thinkI've talked to Tom about this as
I've expressed my the my shiftin perspective.
But one one of the ways that Iwas looking at Thomas was the
how can God not be the cause ofevil?
And and when when Aquinas dealswith with evil and sin, he

(42:32):
clarifies in a lot of differentways, and so let's say we grant
all of his premises.
Aquinas will conclude that Godis the cause of the act of evil,
but not the evil itself.
And it's reduced to the to thedeficient secondary cause.
Um, an analogy might be uh whenthe sun casts a shadow on a
tree, uh when the sun shines ona tree and the tree casts a

(42:53):
shadow, the the cause of theshadow is the sun, ultimately,
but you trace the shadow back tothe tree.
It's an imperfect analogy, butit kind of makes sense.
But then when I put that intopractice, switch out words with
God is the cause of the act ofmurder, God is the cause of the
act of genocide, fill in theblank.
No matter how much I thoughtabout it, it didn't seem to me

(43:16):
like that was God as describedin Jesus.
And I as I've become moreinvolved, and and I guess Randy,
you know, as a as a pastor, asyou talk to people and see
people's pain and uh and heartheir heartbreak and want to
know about does God love me?
Is this God?

(43:37):
Um, I've adopted uh Peter'sapproach, which is um in in
scripture, which is uh wherePeter sees, he thinks he sees
Jesus coming to him across thewater.
Is it a ghost?
And and he says, if that's you,tell me to come to you.
And that's my approach withtheology.
So I can make lots of thingsmake sense.
But to me, it's is that is thatyou, Lord?

(43:58):
Is that is that Jesus?
And uh I think when I when Iread Aquinas like you, I have a
lot of respect for him.
Um I I think that he has awonderful vision of God, and I
think he takes the best ofphilosophy and science of the
day and synthesizes itbrilliantly.
And he's not afraid to pushback against people who keep who
preceded him.

(44:19):
Uh and uh he was, you know, insome ways, I think he was a
theological rebel, and I loveit.
And I think uh, but as far ashis view of God, um, I just
don't know that that's the theGod I can believe in who is
revealed in Jesus Christ.
So that's kind of where I'mwhere I'm at.
I can't preach that.
I mean, I guess I could, but Idon't really believe it.
And that's and if I don'tbelieve it, then my parishioners

(44:40):
aren't going to believe it.

Tom (44:43):
That's that's beautifully put.
I I'm hearing two majorjustifications for your shift.
One is uh evidence based onexperience or how you say the
world really works, so your ownexperience in the world.
And the second one is an appealto what you think Jesus is like
and whether or not he reveals.

(45:04):
Those seems to be prettycentral for you.

Chris (45:07):
Yeah.

Tom (45:09):
For me too.

Chris (45:11):
Uh yeah, and so as I read you, Tom, you know, I think you
do a really good, I mean,really, really good job.
But for me, it's not that it'sincoherent.
It's just it creates a God Ithink I can't believe in that
God in real with relation toevil, and I just I just can't.
So that's to me where I reallypicked up in you in your book is
the the evil part.
Thanks.

Randy (45:29):
What do you mean when you say that I've what do you mean
when you say that, Chris, thatyou can't believe in that God as
it relates to evil?
Did you say?

Chris (45:36):
Yeah, so if if if the classical uh picture of God
where um God ordains all thingsand um not only the ends, but
the means to the ends, um, andthen with given the amount and
subs pain and suffering we seein the world, I I don't think
the the the answers that I'vebeen given are are good enough.
And even if they are, itresults in a God that I would
have want to have nothing to dowith.

(45:56):
Okay.

Tom (45:59):
Yeah, and in this book uh that you responded to, The death
of omnipotence, birth ofamnipotence, um you know from my
past work that I've reallyfocused on the problem of evil
as my reason to rejecttraditional views of God's
power.
But in writing this book, Iwanted to sort of uh make the

(46:20):
argument broader and bring inthe philosophical considerations
and the biblicalconsiderations, in addition to
proposing an alternative.
So um I think you're right formost people, the problem of evil
is the strongest of thosearguments.

Kyle (46:38):
Yeah, and it's the thing I I'll say that makes this
worthwhile, like all thisnerdom.
Uh it's what gives it teeth.
This this is why it matters.
It it fundamentally reorientsyour perspective of what God can
mean as a concept, andtherefore what kind of being you
can be in a relationship with,and therefore what you can

(46:58):
expect of the world, this oneand the next one, if there is a
next one.
And what I mean by that isthere's either like we're
surrounded by horrific daily Iwon't even give references, but
I could name things I read abouttoday that make me think there
can't be anything behind this.

(47:19):
And if there is, I don't wantto know it.
And same same as you, Chris,when I had kids, that that
increased a thousandfold.
Um and so this fundamentallyreorients what you can expect to
be done about that, ifanything, if you think that's
meaningful at all.
And yet I'm I'm in this weirdposition where I can't go the

(47:43):
way that Tom has gone.
Yeah because well I want to tryto discuss a little bit here
why that is, um try to think itout loud because I'm not totally
sure myself, but I find myselfin this position where I don't
think there's a good answer tothe problem of evil after having
thought about it very carefullyfor a long time.
In fact, some of the proposedsolutions to it offend me.

(48:05):
Um and yet I think God exists,and I think that entails that
that something could have beendone about it.
Something could be done aboutit now that isn't being done.
And that puts me in a weirdposition with God, a weird
position with Jesus.
And we've we've talked aboutthis a lot on the show about
problem of evil and what itmeans and what it you know does
to our faith.

(48:25):
And it puts me in a position ofaporia or like I mysterianism,
whatever you want to call it,um, I'm in a really strange
place with Jesus.
Uh when we talked about prayeruh recently.
Yeah.
And the best I could say aboutit was when I try, the first
thing I feel is in a kind ofestrangement and a little bit of
anger.
And this is a huge part ofthat.

(48:47):
Um and i i if I try to imaginean afterlife, which I'm not sure
I believe in anymore, but if Itry to imagine one, the only
thing I can imagine is howfucking dare you, like some
version of that, right?
So that's where I'm at.
And it would be really nice,frankly, to be able to say, as
you do, Tom, uh, God couldn't doanything about that.

(49:08):
God is in a similar position tome with respect to evil for
very good reasons, for veryconsidered reasons.
And so I want you both tocomment a little bit on your
fundamental ideas of what itmeans to be God.
Because I'm still kind of,maybe, Tom, you would say I'm
stuck in this place, I don'tknow, but I'm in this place

(49:29):
where when I think of theconcept, just the same as I used
to teach it to my students inphilosophy 101, before we even
get to the question of whetherthis thing exists, we have to
define the concept.
We have to understand what thehell we're talking about.
And to me, a notion of God, notjust a really powerful being,
but God, includes that itcreated this world.

(49:51):
And I don't know how to makesense of that without something
very close to omnipotence, closeenough that it could have done
something about all this.
And so if it if it can't dothat, then I have a very hard
time thinking of that thing asGod.
Maybe I'm getting that allbackwards, but I want you guys
to talk about like when you getdown to brass tacks, what is God

(50:13):
really?
Because I asked you, Tom, andkind of somewhat jokingly,
tongue in cheek, but I kind ofmeant it, on your view, how is
God different from a reallyadvanced alien?
If God is limited, for example,by not having a body, uh, or or
whatever, like that's a sci-fiscenario to me.
Like, that's we're not talkingtheology anymore.

(50:35):
So tell me why I'm wrong,Chris.
I want your take on all that aswell.

Tom (50:40):
You want to start, Chris?
What do you think?

Chris (50:42):
Oh, I'll I'll add you, I'm still I'm still thinking.

Tom (50:44):
Okay.
There's so many things that Iwant to comment on there, uh,
Kyle.
But I'll just start with my ownview of things, and then um
we'll see where that takes us.
For me, God is a universalspirit whose nature is love and

(51:06):
has maximal influence in theworld.
I can add things like knows allthat's possible to know and
everlasting, which I also agreewith.
So those are kind ofcharacteristics that make God
different from any alien orcreature that I know.
So there's some pretty bigclaims.

(51:26):
But I think the biggest one forus maybe to explore is the
maximal power one.
What does it mean to havemaximal power?
And um I think as you know,that when you start thinking
about God's power, you alwayshave to have a certain
assumptions about the primacy ofdivine love.

(51:46):
So whatever you say aboutdivine power as I see it, can't
contradict or undermine or be inopposition to love.
And another thing I think youneed to do is take into account
what you think you know bestfrom your experience.
And so claims about free will,which are, you know, pretty

(52:08):
prominent in in the literaturehere, uh, that we all have we
all at least believe, think wemake free choices.
We gotta take that intoaccount.
And, you know, I'm in the campthat says God can't control free
creatures, uh, otherwise we'renot really free.
But we also have to take intoaccount suffering and evil and

(52:30):
things we think that areopposite of what God wants.
And so maximal power for me isalways gonna be qualified by not
only God's nature of love, butlife as I seem to understand it.
Acknowledging that I don't knowall things and I can make
mistakes and you know, I'm I'mfallible, all that sort of

(52:51):
stuff.
Um so that's how I start tothink about maximal power in
God.
And because other philosopherslike to use the language of
maximal power, and I think theydon't aren't specific enough, I
try to hone in on thecharacteristics of this
universal loving spirit who hasmaximal power.

(53:15):
I think that means that Godexerts influence on all other
existence in creation andreceives influence from all
other things.
I think maximal power meansdoing that everlastingly.
So the duration of thatinfluence, so that we we're
talking breadth, we're talkingduration.

(53:36):
Uh I think that it also meansthat the individuals in our own
lives who we think are the mostpowerful have the ability to
inspire other people to usetheir powers towards some common
goal.
So that's why we think MotherTeresa is stronger or more
powerful than the the Olympicthe gold medal Olympic

(54:00):
weightlifter, because thatperson used their muscles, but
Mother Teresa has inspired otherpeople to use their muscles in
a lot greater and bodies in alot greater ways.
So that's I could say moreabout this, but I think I'll
start there.
That's what I mean by God, andthat's how I try to um think
about God's power in light ofthese other factors.

Chris (54:24):
Well, thanks for that, Tom.
As you were describing that, itreminded me of what I really
appreciate about your work andum your your your theological
imagination.
Um I like the fact that you'renot afraid to uh topple sacred
cows of theology.
Um and I think that uh thatshows a real um commitment to
truth, which I I respect.

(54:44):
Um for me, Kyle, I'm in asimilar place as you.
I don't know what to thinkabout God at this point.
Um I think, like you mentioned,and I think uh, you know, I've
been reading a lot of processmetaphysics just to get my get
the background.
And while it's interesting,where I think a lot of these
things founder, at least, atleast for me, is creation.
And I think uh Tom, your workon creation of nothing uh is uh

(55:08):
is fascinating to me.
I've read a lot of what you'vesaid, and some days I think I
think he's got it.
And other days I think I thinkhe just restated creation out of
nothing but used differentwords.
So it depends on the day.
So I'm looking forward to ourdiscussion.
I got a couple, I've got acouple questions.
But um because as Kyle, as youmentioned, uh for Aquinas,
omnipotence is the only thingthat can bring something into

(55:29):
being from nothing.
Um, and so that's sort of builtinto the system.
But then what do we do with theworld?
What do we do with what weobserve in the world, the amount
of pain and suffering on adaily that that stagger the
imagination?
Um at the risk of just pullinga Jesus juke, um, I will I'll
say that in in the Anglicantradition in my church, we uh

(55:52):
you know there's a saying thatgoes back a long, long ways
back, but we use it a lot, whichis just um uh lex orandi lex
credendi, which is the rule ofprayer is the rule of belief.
And so as I've um done umpastoral work and as the work of
through my ordination processesof of um of praying the prayer
book of con prayer um andparticipating in the sacraments,

(56:14):
that's where I meet God.
And um at first I thought uhwhen I if I hear myself say
that, I would have thoughtthat's really just shallow.
But as I participated in it,whatever sense that I've had of
its shallowness has disappeared.
I I when I when I when I servethe bread and the wine, I'm
meeting God's graciousness andpresence in that.

(56:37):
And to me, it points to um whoJesus is.
Uh Rowan Williams, one of ourone of our greatest uh
theologians, he said that faithis bel is trusting that God is
not less than has been revealedin the person of Jesus.
And so when I think about God,I'm of two minds.

(56:59):
I have all this interestingmetaphysical questions.
What does it look like to saythat God created the world?
Um, what are the implicationsfor evil?
Um what does disembodimentmean?
What I had what I, you know,all these really good questions.
But for me is does it does it,does it reflect the
self-sacrificial nature of whoJesus was?
Something that I consistentlypreach um on Sundays, um, and

(57:22):
again, Randy, uh you canhopefully uh speak to this as
well, is that in the Gospels,Jesus is constantly shifting our
perception of what power is, ofwhat wealth is, of what favor
with God is.
It isn't to the physicallypowerful, those who can control
and dominate it.
It's to the weak.
Jesus did not come as aconquering king, but as um as an
oppressed, subjugated savior.

(57:45):
So when I look at that, that'shonestly where I have to say
that's who God is.
And what that means for evil, Ihave no idea.
And I really like what you say,Tom, as far as the
implications, but I'd have tothink about it some more because
um it's really challenging.
I'll leave it at that, but thenthat's that's what I have on
that topic.

Tom (58:03):
Can I challenge you, Kyle?

Kyle (58:05):
Yes, that's why that's why I invited you here, Tom.

Tom (58:08):
Good.
Uh this is probably not exactlythe way you said it, but I've
heard other people say this, andyou said something to the
effect of God for you has to beomnipotent, sort of an aspect in
part, or maybe in main, becauseGod has to be the creator.

(58:32):
God the word God functions asan omnipotent creator, and I'm
assuming you mean out of nothingthere as well.
And that approach always seemsseems weird to me.
Like if you start with apremise, God has to be X, Y, and
Z.
I do that too, but um I I liketo think that I'm open to

(58:53):
shifting my premises.
Kind of like if someone saidthe world for me, by definition,
has to be the center of theuniverse.
And then someone came alongwith good arguments for why
there was the world wasn't atthe center of the universe, but
there still is a universe, youwouldn't dismiss the whole

(59:13):
universe because the world's nolonger at the center.
You'd adjust what you think isgoing on in some way and
probably maintain the world andthe universe just in a different
kind of relation.
Um is what you're suggestinghere similar with God?
Like is it the case that youcan maintain the word God, keep

(59:34):
some of the attributes that mostpeople think God has, but shift
some of the others because justlike because there's reasons to
do so, evidence, whatever.
What do you think of that?

Kyle (59:46):
I think that's a fair critique.
And it depends on how centralthat thing I'm being asked to
shift is, I suppose.
Sure.
And I don't want this to boildown to just semantics, right?
I want there to be likemeaningful, important
differences here that havepurchase.
And I think they're But I'mtotally open to the idea.
In fact, I embrace the ideathat some of our I mean, some

(01:00:06):
concepts we absolutely take forgranted we know are wrong.
And we give all kinds ofexamples from science of that,
right?
Like the idea that space iscurved.
I mean, what that even makessense to me, right?
That's not my experience ofspace.
And so it might just be that myconcept of that thing that I
take to be basic to myexperience is just fundamentally

(01:00:26):
mistaken.
And I, if I want to be informedand if I want to speak
carefully, I have to replace itwith an entirely different
concept.
And so it's it's possible thatthat's true of God too.
I'll grant that.
Absolutely it is.
Um I guess maybe it's because Iread Anselm at an informative
age.
I don't know what it was.
Maybe I shouldn't have donethat.

(01:00:48):
But like the uh that wholeargument uh doesn't get off the
ground with Anselm's anyontological argument, but
primarily primarily Anselm's.
The whole thing is based on theidea that we all kind of have
an idea of what God is, even theatheist.
We know what we're talkingabout.

(01:01:08):
If we're actually disagreeing,we're disagreeing about
something that we share incommon.
And that idea is somethingalong the lines of the greatest
conceivable maximal possiblebeing, whatever you want to,
however you want to catch itout.
And that includes any greatmaking power, and one of those
is um the ability to make aworld, uh, to make it
differently from the way that itcould have been.

(01:01:30):
And if God could have donebetter than what is here, then
that wouldn't have been God.
Right.
Or if we can conceive of athing that could have done
better than this, then thatthing that we're conceiving of
is God.
Like that's the wholeontological argument.
And I guess I was persuaded bythat basic premise.
I think I do kind of have thatidea, and I don't think it's I
don't think I'm imagining thegreatest human or the best pizza

(01:01:53):
or any of those other stupidparodies of the argument.
Right?
I think God is a unique kind ofnotion in that sense.

Tom (01:01:59):
Isn't it also true though, even though you think God is
that then which nothing greatercan be conceived, God is
perfect, has all these greatmaking great making properties.
But you're like 90 or the vastmajority of the rest of us.
If you see that one of those grthat two of those great making
properties are contradictory,you're willing to adjust, right?

Kyle (01:02:19):
Yeah.

Tom (01:02:19):
I mean, yeah.
So it's not like you just say,okay, God's gotta be the
greatest in all things, reasonbe damned, experience be damned.
That's right.
So it I suspect you're alsokind of in the game of trying to
make it all work out in someway.

Kyle (01:02:37):
And I'm just maybe and I don't even really have a dog in
this fight anymore.
Oh, really?
It's like a kind of a a weirdconversation to enter back into
because I'm still interested init, you know, kind of like
Chris, I think.
I spent so long being so muchso caring caring so much about
this that I still feel like Ihave a dog in the fight, even
though I probably don't.
Um but but where it is real tome is that that evil thing,

(01:02:59):
right?
Yeah, yeah.
And if I could conceive of athing that seems to me like God,
a thing that I could willinglyworship, that in some way
squares it with the existence ofthe evil that I see, I would
gladly embrace that thing.
Even if it meant upending whatI thought the word God meant or

(01:03:20):
whatever, you know, changing theconcept out entirely.
So I resonate a lot with bothboth what both a lot of what
both of you are saying here.

Tom (01:03:26):
And I'd like to ask you another question of actually
both of you, Chris and oh I canguess all three of you if you
want.
I was reading today an articlein a Faith and Philosophy
journal maybe 10, 15 years ago.
And uh one of the argument andthe guy was making arguments
similar to the kind of argumentsI make, but near the end, he
said something that I found tobe true, but I wasn't sure it

(01:03:49):
was true for universally.
He said something like we allknow that if push comes to shove
and we have to choose betweengoodness and power, we
intuitively know that goodnessis better uh intrinsically
better.
So in other words, he's makingthe argument that we we sort of

(01:04:10):
intuitively know we have torethink power issues in order to
align them with our notions ofgoodness.
Do you think that's too stronga claim?
Does that fit with you guys?

Kyle (01:04:19):
If he really meant we all know, then it's obviously false.
Unless you just don't takeNietzsche's if you think
Nietzsche was lying.
Yeah, or I was thinking ofcertain politicians Yeah, yeah,
Trump couldn't exist if thatwere true.
Like maybe he just meant maybehe just meant um beyond certain
forms of sociopathy or uh realpsychological d issues, but that

(01:04:41):
wouldn't account for Nietzscheor people like that either.
So no, he's wrong about that.
But it resonates.
Yeah.
I think it's the conviction isaccurate.
Yeah.
Chris, what do you think?

Chris (01:04:52):
Yeah, so I'm with you.
Um I think the conviction isaccurate.
Recent events in the world havehave seen I've seen people who
would say they agree, but whatthey identify as goodness is
power.
So maybe again the the thepremise is correct, but the way
that plays out is hard.
I I I uh I've I I am a littlebit disheartened to the to the

(01:05:13):
extent to which people I thoughtcould distinguish the two
cannot.

Kyle (01:05:17):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Good points.
Did the pastor have anything topitch on?
No, okay.
Um this reminds me of somethingthat I thought of a little bit
earlier in the conversation, butI think is relevant here as
well.
Is and it's a point in Tom'sfavor for what's worth, is like
if if we have these two ideas,because you used that beautiful
analogy, Chris, earlier when youwere pressing Tom on.

(01:05:39):
Um, well, what about yournotion of love?
That has a lot ofqualifications too, hasn't it?
Um but like if we have to getrid of one, this is maybe what
something like what this guy wasgetting at, right?
If it's between a certain kindof Jesus-based definition of
love, or not even justJesus-based, you don't have to
be Christian to see the value inthis, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Some some kind of um universal,um yeah, I want to say

(01:06:02):
unqualified, like a kind of anunconditional, you know, love
based on whatever the essence ofhuman beings is.
Um doesn't have to God doesn'teven have to exist to, I think,
see the value in that.
And if you have that on onehand and some complicated notion
of power on the other, it'spretty obvious which one you
should get rid of, right?
Like what do you lose if youget rid of of these?

(01:06:23):
On the one hand, you loseeverything, and on the other,
I'm not sure, honestly.
Like you you lose some theability to explain some
intuitions that are already hardto explain.

Chris (01:06:32):
So No, I think you're exactly right, Kyle.
And uh, you know, I realize aseven as I was writing the paper,
is I mean, what a what a boringthing am I presenting of like,
well, technically, uh, you know,so but I mean, look, when I
when I was reading your yourbook, Tom, I I was thinking, how
how can this make the mostimpact?
And you know, reading yourtreatment of of um of the the

(01:06:55):
death by thousandqualifications, I guess I I
thought, man, I was waiting forfor something that would really,
you know, make me as a formerThomas to really just like stop.
But when you cite Thomas, Ithought, well, Thomas already
dealt with this, or or you know,and so ultimately I I think
like uh Kyle, it doesn't matterif it's coherent.
Uh it's uh because great, whatare the implications?
I'd go with love if if it'sincompatible with love, it's if

(01:07:18):
it's incompatible with Jesus,I'm choosing Jesus uh for my
context or love um every day andtwice on Sunday.
Uh so I think I think that's athat's a good point.
I just wanted to focus whatexactly is the criticism here?

Kyle (01:07:31):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Anything else we should uh hashout while we're all here
together?
Did we figure this out?

Tom (01:07:40):
Well, one of the things I try to do is take my critics'
best arguments to heart.
Um and part of that means I tryto ask myself, well, what are
the good reasons to retainbelief in omnipotence?
And obviously there's somethings that some people are good

(01:08:03):
reasons I'm not gonna think aregood reasons, but like if I try
to give people the best, themost charitable interpretation.
Uh one reason to hold on toomnipotence that I have some of
my friends uh who affirm, and Idon't think you guys are in this
camp, is basically an argumentbased on tradition.
The vast majority oftheologians in the Christian

(01:08:26):
tradition and in Islam as wellas Judaism have said that God is
omnipotent, and it's kind oflike, you know, why why um try
to why try to go away fromsomething that's working, which
I don't think it's working, butthat's kind of their argument.
Like it's it's an appeal to theauthority of the tradition.
Um another one, and this wasthe last kind of thing to fall

(01:08:51):
for me, was an eschatologicalhope.
So you know, if folks are indire straits, you know, I think
our country's in going throughsome tough times now, but could
get worse, and there's beenworse times in history, but
you're going through direstraits, and it's not looking
like good is prevailing.
It it would feel great if youcould bank on an omnipotent God

(01:09:16):
who could single-handedly fixthings at the end, whether that
means you know, universalism orsome sort of annihilationism or
two classic heaven and hell, orwhatever it is.
Somehow this God um that wouldbe a a reason to want to hold on
to omnipotence.
Um so those are twopossibilities.

(01:09:38):
Can you think of guys think ofothers that are you've heard
that are fairly at leastsomewhat compelling?

Chris (01:09:45):
Uh yeah, Kyle, visor, if I tack on here.
Please do, yeah.
Connected to those, connectingmaybe to the to the
eschatological hope one, is um Ispeak to a lot of um uh friends
who are really invested inliberation theology.

Kyle (01:09:58):
Yes.

Chris (01:09:59):
Um, and so um I've heard you talk about this before, and
I think your response, pleasecorrect me if I'm wrong, is
something like, How's thatworking out for you so far?

Tom (01:10:09):
Yeah, you've heard me.
That's Julie kind of beingsnarky.

Chris (01:10:13):
Exactly.
And and and and I and I I I Icertainly get that response.
But when I read James Cohn, forexample, and it's not just that
it's not gonna work out now,but a God who intends to and is
dead is aimed towards liberatingum God's people, um, even if

(01:10:37):
it's not now, that God can andwill redeem you from what what
happened to you is reallyimportant.
That and um I find, you know,that that response, again, I I
think it it it it it makes sensebecause right, you know, how's
that working out for you now?
But when I speak to people likethat, I don't know how I can
articulate that in a way thatstays true to the spirit of God,

(01:11:00):
it's not just intent, but Godwill redeem you from what what
has happened to you.
Um your your dehumanizationwill be turned into
humanization.
Um your destruction of lifewill be brought to life in
wholeness and fullness.
And that's um sometimes thatmakes me uh sit back and think
about how to think about God'spower.
So I don't know how you respondto something like that.

Tom (01:11:22):
Yeah, I I've been thinking a lot about this, and and um and
some of the ways I'mresponding, Chris, is to say um
there is the James Cohn's of theworld, but there's also the
major Joneses of the world, aguy who wrote a book called Is
God a White Racist?
And he's a person of color whorejects omnipotence for these
issues.

(01:11:42):
Um but one of my this is gonnasound snarky again, maybe a
little bit, but um another lineI've been using in moments when
I'm I'm trying not to, you know,when I'm I'm kind of letting
loose with my friends, is umsomething like this.
Um so you want to spendeternity with a God who allowed

(01:12:06):
all the crap you went throughwhen that God could have stopped
it.
Does that sound like the kindof eternity that sounds
blissful?
You know?
Um so that's kind of anotherappeal to the how that's working
out for you.
Except it's it's asking, okay,what do you imagine the
afterlife being in the presenceof a God who could have

(01:12:27):
prevented your suffering andliberated you far more quickly?
Um so yeah, I'm not sure thoseare going to convince everybody,
but I do think they're prettystrong.

Kyle (01:12:40):
Yeah.
I'm I'm a Tom on this one.
Like there's there's uh if Godcould do something about it in
the future, then God could dosomething about it now or at any
point in the past, unless wehave a good reason for thinking
otherwise.
And I'm just not aware of whatthat reason is.
So but at the same time, who amI to speak to what gives those
liberation theologians that kindof hope?
I get it.

(01:13:00):
I just recently finally gotaround to reading Tana Hasikot's
book between the world and me,and he takes a much more realist
kind of uh you know, atheistickind of take on the thing.
And I I think it's alsoimportant to be able to face
head on the possibility thatthere is no point to any of
that, that it happened and itwas every bit as bad as you
think it was, and there was noreason for it.
Oh, there was a reason for it,but not anyone that will satisfy

(01:13:23):
anybody.

Chris (01:13:23):
Yeah, no, I'm I'm tracking with you.
I I just um it's it's somethingI'm in co I've encountered, and
I I've thought about how do Irespond um possibly.
Um I uh Tom, I I want to saybriefly about tradition.
Um I uh there's a line in yourbook about how omnipotence is
kept on life support throughhigh church liturgies, and I
thought, oh man, that's that's athat's my fault.

(01:13:44):
Um so I thought you know I I Iyou know I I brought my you
know, looking through my book ofcommon prayer, a lot of times
we don't use the wordomnipotent, we use um almighty
God.

Kyle (01:13:56):
Sure.

Chris (01:13:57):
And and uh I have some friends in my tradition who
would insist that meansomnipotence.
But one of my priest mentors, Ithink you know him, uh his name
is Paul Nancaro.

Kyle (01:14:07):
Yes, I do.

Chris (01:14:08):
Yeah, so he I've had a lot of conversations with him,
and he was adamant that inabsolutely no way does that
commit myself as a minister inthe Episcopal Church to
omnipotence, or you just hewould re-I forget his
definition, but he but uh I uh Iwas thinking about your line.
I thought what way do ways do Ido when we when we use the
liturgy, does it prop up viewsof God that are harmful?

(01:14:30):
And it's something I've beenmore aware of, but I keep
thinking whenever I say AlmightyGod, I think I'm like, oh but
but the way I do it is theAlmighty is God possesses
because you've talked about Godas is extremely powerful in a
certain sense.
And so um that's where I justuse the crystal I the
Christological definition of Godpossessing the most power,

(01:14:50):
which is which is not umcoercive or controlling.
So but anyway, I just I I hadto laugh at your line of like I
love it.

Tom (01:15:00):
And it's you can find if you go back 10 or 15 years, you
can f I think 15 years agoprobably, you can find me
defending the use of the wordalmighty and defining it in
three ways.
Almighty means God exerts mightupon all, Almighty means God

(01:15:22):
gives might to all, and Almightymeans God is mightier than any
other.
And God could be Almighty inthose three ways and be
uncontrolling or amnipotent inthe way I'm talking about.
I just ended up uh deciding Iwasn't going to use Almighty
because I realized that was uhwhat is found in scripture from

(01:15:43):
what I think are mistranslationsof Hebrew and Greek, and and
also some people equate almightyand omnipotent, and so yeah.
Anyway, thanks for sharingthat.

Kyle (01:15:53):
Well, if we've made it back to the Bible, that means
the conversation has reached itszenith, as far as I'm
concerned.
Who cares about that thing,right?

Tom (01:16:02):
I'm kidding.
Thanks so much, Chris, for foryour criticisms.

Chris (01:16:07):
Yeah, uh, no, I appreciate it.
It's it was a joy to read, andI've uh I've I've given away
copies.
Um and uh I yeah, for sure.
And you know, I love I lovethis idea.
And you know, uh uh Kyle, butjust the last thing I might say
is you know, thinking about theterm omnipotence is uh, you
know, for someone like Thomas,the power of God is, yeah, he
uses the term omnipotence, butit's proper to who the name it's

(01:16:31):
it's the power God's activepower in relation to the nature
of who God is.
And so I mean, you could saythe nature of who God is as as
prime primarily loving is God ismaximally powerful in that
sense.
So I mean, so I mean you couldeven have like a neo-Tomist,
yeah.
He he wouldn't, if he'slistening, Thomas, I'm sorry.

(01:16:51):
But um, but uh but uh you couldI rephrase it.
So I think it's not alien tothese these concepts, which is
why I think you know you have alot of uh promise in your idea.

Tom (01:17:00):
So thank you.

Kyle (01:17:01):
Fair enough.
And he was he'd be the first tosay that uh he didn't get it
all right, right?
If if the uh apocryphal storyabout him giving up everything
after his truth.

Chris (01:17:10):
He said it when he got when he hit his head, he said
everything he'd written is justdrawn is straw.
And I think what he meant tosay further is also omnipotence
should be omnipotent, but that Ithink that part was lost.

Tom (01:17:22):
Right there in the text.
That's really good.

Kyle (01:17:26):
All right.
On that note, guys, thanks somuch.
I hope that uh you guys have agreat time at the LGBT camp.
I'm sad that I won't be therewith you.

Randy (01:17:37):
Sorry I had nothing to contribute here.
We hope you're enjoying theseconversations.
Help us continue to createcompelling content and reach a
wider audience by supporting usat patreon.com slash a pastor

(01:17:59):
and a philosopher, where you canget bonus content, extra perks,
and a general feeling of beinga good person.

Kyle (01:18:04):
Also, please rate and review the show in Apple,
Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Please help new people discoverthe show and we may even read
your review in a future episode.

Randy (01:18:12):
If anything we said pissed you off, or if you just
have a question you'd like us toanswer, send us an email at
pastor and philosopher atgmail.com.

Kyle (01:18:20):
Find us on social media at PPWB podcast, and find
transcripts and links to all ofour episodes at Pastor and
Philosopher.buzzproduct.com.
See you next time.
Cheers.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Burden

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Power, Love, and What God Can’t Do: More on Omnipotence With Tom Oord and Chris Lilley

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Burden

All Episodes

Power, Love, and What God Can’t Do: More on Omnipotence With Tom Oord and Chris Lilley

Stuff You Should Know