GOD AFTER DECONSTRUCTION
a review by Jim Burklo of the new book by
Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller
SacraSage Press 2024
In the 12th century, the Spanish Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote “The Guide for the Perplexed” in order to help the intellectually-oriented to find meaning in the Hebrew scriptures deeper than a literal reading could yield. “God After Deconstruction” is a guide for perplexed evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who seek a kinder, saner understanding and practice of the faith. Its authors themselves have “deconstructed” from supernaturalist, exclusivist, and triumphalist Christianity. Tom is in recovery from his expulsion from a Church of the Nazarene seminary for viewpoints they considered heretical. Tripp is a leading ex-vangelical scholar and podcaster.
Tom Oord now convenes a wide circle of scholars and thinkers around his “open and relational” theology, clearly influenced by his PhD studies in process theology at Claremont School of Religion. He crystallized a framework that took the essentials of Whiteheadian thought and made them accessible to a lay audience made up primarily of “deconstructing” evangelicals. A key term coined by Tom underlies this and his other books: God is amipotent – love + power - attracting all toward goodness and creativity, and not omnipotent – directing and controlling the cosmos.
This book breaks down the causes of deconstruction: grappling with the problem of evil, abuse in the church, irreconcilable conundrums in the Bible, doctrinal absurdities, conflicts with science, conflation of the faith with reactionary politics, and the reality of religious diversity. One by one, the authors offer alternative theological constructs, all pointing back to God as amipotent rather than omnipotent.
This book is easy to read, with study notes after each chapter, and lots of useful footnotes to direct further, deeper exploration. I recommend it highly for individuals and groups as a pathway into a more sensible, compassionate form of Christianity. It is a balm for the suffering that comes with dismantling a non-functional and often harmful, toxic theology. Readers going through this wrenching process will feel understood and embraced.
At the same time, the book begs a question. 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love”. Love is not an entity, a divine or supreme being, but rather a certain kind or quality of relationship. Indeed, as Tom and Tripp repeatedly suggest, love does not control or direct. It can’t be blamed for the evil that exists in the world. It manifests beyond any particular religion or scripture. It attracts and inspires and guides us toward the good. But why, then, would we continue to use anthropomorphic language to describe God? Over and over, the authors write about what God wants and what God does. They say that God relates, as if he/she/they/it were a party to a relationship, but the implication of “God is love” is that God is the relationship itself. God is a relationship that is personal, but God is not a person.
Either God is an amipotent entity, or God is amipotence itself. This important distinction isn’t clarified in the book, leaving the deconstructing Christian dangling at a precipice.
In the process philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead and his followers, the cosmos is understood as a web of relationships rather than as a collection of atomic, individual “dots”. Relationships are the fundamentals of the universe - constantly creating, shifting, and changing in an open, non-determined manner. Why, then, would we stick with the old God-language that is used to refer to a Guy in the Sky, managing and manipulating the universe?
We can creatively interpret the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as a mythological expression of the death of a supernatural, omnipotent God and the emergence of God as nothing less, and nothing more, than love. God as a supreme being was laid in the tomb, and God as the transformative, relational consciousness of compassion rose on the third day.
So to this otherwise highly useful book, written with deep sensitivity, I would add this sequel. Not only is it okay to let go of biblical literalism, Christian exclusivism, and absurd and toxic doctrines, it is also okay to let go of thinking and talking about God as a supreme person or entity. It’s a small step out of defunct doctrine, and a giant leap into a faith that embraces and nourishes the soul.