God Can't: How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils

by Thomas Jay Oord

Many people wrestle with questions of evil. Some appeal to mystery (“God’s ways are not our ways”). Others say God allows evil for some greater purpose. Still others say God punishes with evil. Not only are these answers unsatisfying, they fail to support the view that God loves everyone all the time.


God Can't solves the problem of evil. Author Thomas Jay Oord says God’s love is inherently uncontrolling. Because God cannot control anyone or anything, God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly. This means God can’t stop evildoers, whether human, animal, organisms, or inanimate objects and forces.


God Can't gives a plausible reason why some are healed but many are not. God always works to heal everyone, but sometimes our bodies, organisms, or other creatures do not cooperate with God's healing. Or the conditions of creation are simply not right for the healing God wants to do.


Some people interpret suffering as God’s punishment. Or they think suffering is God's way of building our character. God Can't says God never punishes. But God squeezes good from the evil God didn’t want in the first place. In other words, God uses pain and suffering to build our character and other positive things without willing it.


Most people think God can overcome evil singlehandedly. God Can't says God needs our cooperation for love to reign now and later. This leads to a unique view of the afterlife called, “relentless love.” This view rejects traditional ideas of heaven, hell, and annihilation. It holds to the possibility that all creatures and all creation will eventually respond to God’s relentless love.


Thomas Jay Oord wrote God Can't in accessible prose. Oord's status as a world-renown theologian brings credibility to the book’s radical ideas. He relates these ideas in bite-size, understandable language with numerous illustrations, stories, and biblical support. The stories of victims and survivors illustrate the life-giving ideas of God Can't.


God Can't is for those who want answers to tragedy, abuse, and other evils that make sense!

Genres: Theology, Religion, Faith, Spirituality, Nonfiction, Christian, Christianity

212 pages, ebook

Published January 14, 2019

Reviews

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is a theological term that covers on of the most important conversations with regard to the nature of faith. That word is "theodicy." This term speaks to the eternal question: If God is loving and all-powerful, why does evil exist? Down through the ages all manner of answers have been proposed. They all seem to stumble at some point, mainly because bad things continue to happen to good people. We want answers, not just justifications. We want to know why our friends, neighbors, and relatives, people we love, suffer. If God is truly loving, then why doesn't God act? Suggestions that God allows evil to happen, because it's good for us, doesn't work. The idea God is too weak to act, that doesn't work either. Why bother with such a God?

Tom Oord has been wrestling with these questions for some time. He is known to many because of his connections with Open Theism, but much of his published work focuses on the premise that God is Love. He works from the premise that God is love, and that love is non-coercive and uncontrolling. His recent book The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence describes and defines what this means. That book gave rise to a collection of essays in response, a collection to which I am a contributor: Uncontrolling Love: Essays Exploring the Love of God, with Introductions by Thomas Jay Oord. Now, as a followup to these two books, Oord has published "God Can't."

I had the opportunity to read this book in manuscript, and while enjoyed it and welcomed it, I did tell Tom that I was uncomfortable with the title. It seemed too negative. He received my criticism graciously, but rejected my advice. Having had time to let the book and its title sit with me for a while, I've grown more comfortable with it.

Tom's purpose in writing this book, which is designed for a lay audience, is to communicate the message he has been laying out in other books about the "uncontrolling love of God." The subtitle explains the purpose of the book: "How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils." In response to the question of why believe in God if evil persists, Tom offers a five part answer. Standing as the foundation to this answer is the belief that God always loves and that genuine evil does exist.

In answer to the question of why evil exists if God always loves, Tom begins with the provocative declaration that forms the basis of the title of the book. That declaration is that "God can't prevent evil." It's not that God permits evil, it's that God is by nature unable to prevent evil. It's not that God is not powerful, but because of the nature of love that defines who God is. He writes that a loving God will prevent preventable evil. Since evil exists, and God is love, then the evil exists must not be preventable.

From there he makes the second point: God feels our pain. God is a fellow-sufferer. This is an important point because traditional theology, rooted in Platonism, assumes that God is impassible, that is, God does not experience change. Therefore, God does not suffer nor experience pain. Tom rejects that idea and affirms the premise that seems rooted in the Hebrew scriptures that God does experience suffering and pain, and therefore feels our pain. Now that's not enough of an answer. A weak God could feel our pain, but Tom isn't suggesting that God is weak.

The third point is that God works to heal. So God is not passive in this situation. God is at work, seeking to bringing healing in some form or another to a situation where evil has struck. God doesn't will that we suffer, nor does cause it. Instead God is at work, often in ways we cannot fathom, to bring healing, but this act of healing requires something of us, though he affirms that some healing will await the afterlife.

The fourth point in his answer to the problem of evil, is that "God squeezes good from bad." It is not that God causes bad things to happen, nor desires them to happen, but when they happen, God can and does work to bring something good from the situation. Again, God works with us to bring this into being.

The fifth and final step is the key. "God needs our cooperation." Remember, in his definition of love, love is non-coercive and uncontrolling. I do struggle with this definition, even if I have adopted it for myself. So, if evil is to be overcome, if good is to come out of suffering, then it will require cooperation on our part, and even at deeper levels of reality. In addition, Tom affirms the idea that God's relentless love pursues us even after death. I like that idea. Thus, he writes that when it comes to answering the questions laying before us regarding God, love, and evil, then his response is: "if God always loves, never controls, and wants love to reign, God needs love responses." (p. 176).

Not everyone will receive this word. There is something comforting about an all-controlling God, but in the end if a loving person will prevent preventable suffering, if God is all-loving and has the power to do something about evil and suffering, then should God act? We wouldn't let a human being off scott-free, so why God? With that in mind, Tom's book offers us a way forward, one worth considering.

The book is well-written, accessible, filled with stories, but deeply rooted in Scripture and Christian theology. Thus, it is highly recommended.

[J.L. Neyhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

I mostly agree with Thomas Jay Oord. And I pretty much knew that going into this book, so I was predisposed to like it. I don't believe that God is "up there" orchestrating every detail of our lives, causing or even "allowing" the pain and suffering and evil and death that we experience in our lives. I don't believe it works that way. And Oord does a good job of explaining why that is a really good conclusion to come to based upon Scripture as well as everything we experience in life and know to be true.

Oord pushes back on the common answers and cliches people use about how "everything happens for a reason" and "it's all part of God's plan", and "his ways are higher than our ways" so, mystery.

Key quotes that set up the book:

"The big ideas in this book share two assumptions, and I want to mention them before going further. The first is that God loves us all, all the time. God loves everyone and everything, all creatures great and small. God never stops loving, even for one moment, because God’s nature is love. God listens, feels, and responds by acting for good. God wills our well-being, not our woe being."

"It doesn’t help to say God loves us if we have no idea what love is!"

"By contrast, I believe what God thinks is loving matches what we think is loving. Our intuitions of love fit God’s view of love. We best define this shared meaning when love is understood as acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. In short, love aims to do good. That view of love applies to Creator and creatures. God always loves, and God’s love is always good. Every idea I advocate in this book assumes God is loving."

His five chapters that make up his argument/solution to the problem of evil are the following:

1. God Can't Prevent Evil
2. God Feels Our Pain
3. God Works to Heal
4. God Squeezes Good from Bad
5. God Needs Our Cooperation

He says that together, these five ideas give us an actual solution to the problem of evil, but they aren't satisfying on their own. All five are essential to see the big picture.

I really love this part towards the end of the book:

"I no longer fear God. It took a while to arrive where I am today. I had to overcome fear-based theologies. I realized the Old Testament statement, “fear God,” is better phrased, “respect God.” I came to believe biblical stories portraying God as vengeful were inaccurate. I had to ignore voices in culture, the church, and history that preach this fear. The key to overcoming my fear was realizing God always loves me. God’s perfect love cast out my fear of God!"

[Ken Alexander · Rating 1 out of 5]

Many people find this book inspiring but I find it horrifying.

Imagine having watch the people you love being tortured and killed while you are forced to observe, unable to do anything.

If Oord is right, this is the position God finds himself in. If God truly loves us he must exist in a constant state of mental anguish and horror at his own powerlessness. And when you consider that he's been condemned to do this for hundreds of thousands of years, forced to watch billions and billions of people he loves suffer needlessly. God's conscious life must be an eternal living hell, an idea I find very depressing.

Very interested in anyone's comments on my reaction. Am I misunderstanding something about the implications of Oord's argument?

[Pearl Loewen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am always skeptical when someone purports to solve a theological challenge that has been agonized over, vigorously debated, painfully experienced, and rigorously studied for time immemorial. But Oord does not do that. He simply and systematically repackages concepts that have been wondered by others, and sets them out in a logical manner.

When Tom asks the reader at the beginning of the book to read through to the end, that's the best advice he could give, because one has to enter into the flow of his logic to get the full benefit of the book. And I found the second reading even richer than the first.

The word logic also makes me think of how, generally, Evangelical Christians have been taught to ignore reason and logic. "Just have faith," means that things don't have to make sense. Oord frequently uses words like "does it make sense?" to appeal to using one's rational mind to think through their beliefs.

I encourage Oord's readers with what one of my favourite podcasters says: "You don't have to agree with everything to not agree on some things.

Here is a more detailed review, by chapter:

1: God can't prevent evil.

Overall, the premise of this chapter is that God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly, because God cannot oppose his nature of uncontrolling love. In Tom's words, "Rather than externally limited or voluntarily self-limited, God's nature of love directs what God does." So perhaps God can't could also be interpreted as God's nature can't.

One question of mine that goes unanswered, at least explicitly, is why there is evil in the first place, and to say "the fall" would not be a satisfying answer for me. I believe the answer is inherent in Oord's assertion that not only God can't prevent evil, but couldn't have created a perfect world in the first place because of his uncontrolling love that allows for free will.

I loved the tie-in to the popular question, what would Jesus do? If we cannot imagine Jesus turning away from human suffering and evil, how can we expect God, who Jesus came to reveal, to do so? If God was able to singlehandedly stop evil, God would.

I also concurred with the concept of God as Spirit. I have found that once one rejects the deist God and conceives of God as Spirit, many of the theological tangles go away. My preferred term is personal presence, and it fits with my theology of a non-existent interventionist God.

Favourite of all, however, in this chapter is the quote, "When complex creatures cooperate with God, good things happen. Love flourishes. Peace blossoms. Astonishing miracles can occur. When complex creatures fail to cooperate with God, evil happens. Unnecessary pain and pointless suffering occur. The demons dance." Amen! Beautiful!

2: God feels our pain.

The meaning of this statement is that God is a vulnerable, compassionate, empathetic God. This concept could be very difficult for folks who see God as all-mighty and all-powerful, transcendent and distance, and historically this is how God has been perceived to the exclusion of any alternative. Yet theologians and clergy such as Richard Rohr have been introducing me to a God who is vulnerable and suffers, as seen in Jesus. Relentless love is powerful, but a different kind of power. Relentless love is mighty, but a different kind of might.

I loved the six ways (not an exhaustive list) of feeling God, God's presence, and God's love, being: (1) the ministry of presence; (2) a community of care; (3) mindfulness, meditation, and prayer; (4) experience in nature; (5) visual art, music, and movies; and (6) the love of a child [and perhaps one might add a puppy or kitten]. I was encouraged by the fact that less emotional people (such as me) may struggle more with perceiving God's love, presence, or spirit.

3: God works to heal.

Oord talks about different beliefs: God doesn't heal, or only heals selectively, or healed in Bible times but has ceased to do so; or God always heals, which calls in mystery when necessary, or adds an addendum of "if it's God's will." God is still mystery, but we can know God's nature is love, and to say God's love can't be known because it's so different than ours diminishes the word love itself.

Oord outlines four steps to explain what "God works to heal" means. The first is to believe that God is always present to all creation and always loves to the utmost. I love the quote, "God never intervenes, because God is always already present." I have long struggled with an interventionist God, and this is a wonderful way of stating why God doesn't intervene. Tying into Oord's earlier point, how exactly would a Universal Spirit or Personal Presence, a Being without a body, intervene?

The second step is to believe that God works alongside people and other entities. God and people work together for positive results. Oord words it, "All healing - no matter how it occurs - has God as its source... God is always at work everywhere healing to the utmost possible, given the circumstances... "God works alongside" people and other entities in creation means God is never the only cause in any situation."

The third step reinforces the learning from chapter 1 that God cannot heal singlehandedly. In another beautifully inspired quote, "Effective teamwork between Creator and creation produces every authentic healing or miracle that has ever occurred. Creatures must cooperate with God or the inanimate conditions of creation must be conducive for God's miraculous efforts to bear fruit. Miracles are neither the work of God alone nor creation alone." This is a far better understanding of miracles than the standard understanding. Further, "Factors within or outside us can frustrate God's work to heal." And prayer is one of those factors: "Prayer alters circumstances in our bodies and world. It presents new opportunities for God to heal. Prayer opens up new possibilities for God's love to make an actual difference."

The final step, and I'm glad Oord left it for last, is that some healing must wait. While I accept that God's uncontrolling love extends beyond death and there is some evidence in an afterlife, to hold out hope that everything will be better in the "by and by" is not intellectually satisfying, and often used too soon as a "get out of jail free" card. Oord is careful not to use it as such.

Oord ends this chapter with 15 myths and realities. My favourites are: (1) comparing the myth that, "To heal, God supernaturally intervenes in our lives," with the reality being, "God is always already present and doesn't need to come into our lives or circumstances;" (2) the myth that "There is natural healing, healing by doctors, and divine healing," compared with the reality being "All healing involves God and creaturely causes;" and (3) the myth that "Our prayers for healing don't make any difference," with the reality being "Our prayers alter the circumstances and may open up possibilities for God's healing."

4: God Squeezes Good from Bad

Oord tells the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who has said that she believes her paralyzing injury was divine punishment for sin. I fully concur with Tom's rejection of that theology.

Oord debunks some popular cliches such as, "everything happens for a reason," and speaks of the difference between being thankful for all things versus being thankful in all things. He studies the difference between punish and chasten. I support his belief in natural negative consequences of sin, and have heard it said that, "We are punished more by our sins than for our sins." I also agree with the concept that we sometimes reap what others sow, and appreciate the quote, "Thank goodness, God is not in control!"

The story of Jason Jones' death of his three-year-old son reminded me of Harold Kushner's bestseller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People." Kushner also lost a three-year-old son, which caused him to believe that God could not be both good and all powerful. Harold chose to believe in God's goodness.

I would have been interested in Oord's take on "the devil," or personification of evil.

Oord closes the chapter with the story of Elie Wiesel's survival of the holocaust, recorded in his book Night, and Wiesel's vision of God hanging from the gallows. Wiesel has since died, but in an interview with Krista Tippett several years before his death, he said that he never totally lost his faith, but the God he thought he knew surely had to die. It can be found here: https://onbeing.org/programs/evil-for....

5: God Needs Our Cooperation

Intensely personal and poignant, this was my favourite chapter. Oord develops a theology of an indispensable love synergy, its more radical form saying God needs us and others for love to win. The implication is that what we do matters, for now and into eternity. A no God view and an all God view both water down this implication. Even the conventional view of God, a transcendent, independent, condescending God, diminishes our efforts.

Oord explains what "God needs us" does not mean, then states, "The neediness of God is the neediness of love." He assumes "prevenient grace," meaning God acts first in every moment. He interprets Romans 8:28 using the RSV, to state that "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him." And we love him by loving others. As Tom writes, "The Spirit who has no physical frame calls us to use our physicality to express God's love." But prayer plays a part: "Prayer can align us with God's will while opening new avenues for God to work in us and the world." In prayer, Tom imagines how he or others might cooperate with God for love to proper. He prays for inspiration. He sensitively acknowledges that sometimes it's the most we can do to keep living and breathing.

While I spoke earlier of a personal struggle with the concept of an afterlife, I thought Oord's outline of the implications his theology makes on this concept is brilliant. I had never thought through the ramifications of believing in universalism, that still presupposes that God unilaterally determines who is in and who is out. Tom develops a "relentless love" view of the afterlife. He ties in Rob Bell's theology in the latter's book, Love Wins. What Rob calls "hell," Tom calls "the natural negative consequences of choosing not to cooperate with God's love." Those consequences are "self-imposed not divinely inflicted." As C.S. Lewis would say, "The gates of hell are locked from the inside."

As mentioned, Tom makes himself vulnerable in the last pages of this chapter. He speaks of his fears, and shares his view (also shared by me) that portraying God as vengeful and violent are inaccurate. His fears can be categorized in two ways: fearing the natural negative consequences that come from his failing to love, and fearing the natural negative consequence of other people's sin. And "Divine protection through control is a myth." I would argue that it takes more faith to believe in a uncontrolling, relentlessly loving God than in one who in in control, and has a divine master plan for all time.

In the postscript, Oord lovingly invites us all to live a life of love. He reinforces his goal of helping suffering people make sense of their suffering, and knows his theology will bring criticism. I appreciate that he is willing to take that risk for the sake of the uncontrolling, relentless love of God.

I also appreciate that Oord is willing to take a critical look at Scripture when it portrays an angry, vengeful, violent God. He states, "Bible passages that speak of God as unmerciful reflect the frustration, hurt, or anger of those suffering." Scripture often reflects an evolving consciousness of its writers and editors, and needs to be interpreted through the lens of the true, living Word of God, Jesus.

[Niamh McKee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this book for an essay I wrote for my degree in Theology and Disability, I would not have read it otherwise! I found it deeply problematic and sad because God is depicted as a mere lover who is helpless in the face of evil and suffering. It lacked biblical underpinning, only a handful of verses were cherry picked to suit the aims of the author. I would encourage people to not read this book but instead I would encourage people to read the Bible for a far greater understanding of God given to us by Himself!

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Big idea: God’s power is in the service of his nature as love, which cannot unilaterally coerce, but rather cooperatively empowers creation towards flourishing.

Lots to appreciate here. Will be ruminating. I’m hoping Oord in the future deals more with common rhetoric in some communities that emphasize comforting pictures of God as sovereign. I also imagine that pictures could be helpful here to describe the divine-human relationship.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was so relevant to where we are just now - how could God allow something so terrible as coronavirus? And in a similar vein, how do we answer eloquent arguments like Stephen Fry’s?

https://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

I feel this book provides a satisfactory answer in a simple succinct way and because of that it’s one that I will treasure and keep on my shelf for future reference.
It’s perhaps controversial to some Christians but that makes it a great book for discussion in house groups etc - each chapter ends with a list of questions to discuss.

I won’t say any more as I don’t want to spoil the book, other than that I became aware of it very soon after I had raised this question with a friend from church and she replied that she believed in an all loving God rather than an all powerful God. That sums this book up very well - it is definitely worth a read especially in the current difficult times.

[Cari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Approach this book with caution and prayer. There were parts of this book I loved and parts I'm still wrestling with. The title, of course, is off-putting for those of us raised in conservative circles. But we've all wrestled with why bad things happen. The gist of this book is that God can't stop evil singlehandedly because of His uncontrolling love. He needs our cooperation to accomoplish His good will. The author addresses the problem of evil, why miracles happen sometimes, and how our prayers are important. I'll be thinking about this book for a long time.

[Michael Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don’t let the title of this book for you. You might not agree with the premise of the book, but I promise that the content is worth wrestling with, and if you have experienced profound grief, then I strongly recommend this book.

God deeply desires a cooperative relationship.

I’ve read Oord’s other books, so this was a premise I’ve been wrestling with for a while. I read this one specifically with my divorce in mind to see how it would have helped years ago, and I can say with certainty, this is the only kind of thought process that helped. God uses bad things for good, but doesn’t cause evil things. However, love sometimes requires protection, even/especially from ourselves.

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This can be a difficult read, but it's worth it. Oord talks in honest detail about the ways we mortals ascribe things to God to explain tragedy (He caused it, He allowed it, He chose not to do anything about, etc). Oord explains that God can't go against His own character, which is one of uncontrolling love. His gift of free will means He literally can't control everything that happens to us or those we love. I read this book as part of a discussion group, which was incredibly helpful. Even having been raised in a Protestant Christian religion, these ideas were new to me. It was good to grapple with them in safe space with people I trust.

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank goodness, God is not in control!

Oord presents a novel answer to the question--if God is good, why do bad things happen? His thesis is both pragmatically and intellectually compelling. Implications for life after death were particularly interesting. This is a good book for group study and discussion. 5 stars for the content; minus 1 star for literary style.

[K'lyn D'Elia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books answers many questions about God’s hand in our lives. I believe it’s a necessary concept for the church today to understand if they want to sit with people in their tragedies. A beautiful depiction of a God with uncontrolling love!

[Jaime Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Open theology approach the the problem of evil (theodicy). I think I would have benefitted by reading his book The Uncontrolling Love of God first. God Can’t is, I assume, a practical outworking of his ideas in that book.

[Steve Irby · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished "God Can't," by Thomas Jay Oord.

***IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING A LOVING GOD AFTER TRAGEDY, ABUSE OR OTHER EVIL, READ THIS***

This was a 1 in difficulty: an easy read which nonetheless introduces some theological terms and concepts to the reader. I am very stream of consciousness when I take notes, and usually when I talk too, sorry about that.

This book's prologue starts off by setting the bar high: where was God during the Las Vegas shooting? Since that is the first two pages I believe Oord seeks to answer the long troubling question of Theodicy (justifying God): "if God is all powerful and all loving why do bad things happen?" (to roughly summarize the argument by Epicurus).

After reading Oord's four real life stories of when horrible things happened to people he knows, and the "theological" reasoning these families were given, it makes me cringe.

The ground for the whole book and everything Oord says, or claims he makes, is upon "God is loving." And it is this love which corresponds to how we see love, though Gods holy love is perfect while ours is not [last sentence is assumed based on the text].

"Ultimately evil is evil...from God's perspective and ours."

Ch.1
Oord doesnt hide from his books title: "God cant prevent abuse, tragedy, and evil." Before you raise a stake and stoke the embers give it a moment. I believe I know where he is heading.

"It makes no sense to say God allows genuine evil."

In keeping with the above quote's concept, I absolutely applaud Oord grounding the "who," or the action, of God in the person of Jesus. Would Jesus allow someone's rape, or would He stop it?--there you go, that is your image of the eternal God; dont deviate from it. (Heb. 1:3; cant beat that drum loud enough.)

"If Jesus wouldnt allow evil, neither would God."

He goes on to state some of the things that scripture and some theologians say God can not do. He finished up by stating: "God can not oppose God's own nature."

This leads to Oord introducing how one should view God through scripture. This is shown above with "God 'looks' like Jesus," but he digs in even more by speaking to the majority witness of scripture being "God is love," and deviation from that, that which doesnt look like Jesus, reveals something that doesnt have God's blessing, like the slaying of the Canaanites [my paraphrase and analysis on the subject].

While speaking to the self-limitation of God Oord says that God is not externally controlled and lists external powers, natural laws and Satan as three examples of that which does not control God. I may have been misusing "self-limitation," as he goes on to say that "...God's nature of love directs what God does."

Oord introduces the beautiful concept of Kenosis, and as a good teacher lays out this scriptural concept in a simple way.

When speaking to our freedom as we are created by God with, its limitations and its extents, Oord says "Automations are predetermined machines not capable of real relationships nor able to love freely." Agreed: sans the freedom to do otherwise what does "love" even mean?

"In fact, believing God loves us, others, and all creation is the most important idea of our lives," [my insert: Jn. 3:16; world = Kosmos].

Oord speaks to our working with God to make things happen. God is always lovingly inviting us or calling to us, He never fails to. We, on the other hand arent as reliable. Be it salvation, sanctification or listening and obeying to hand the bag lady a $20.

He finished Ch 1 on a really good note. I'm not going to lay it all out there--read the book--but for Oord to passionately affirm that your pain is not a part of some divine blueprint...amen, amen, amen. If it were I may worship that god but I could not love him.

Ch. 2
This Ch begins speaking to compassion (suffering with) using the story of the good samaritan as a great example of the kind of Christlike compassion we should have. Though as things work, while people can empathize with us, our experiences (and pain) are unique to each of us and while one may be able to understand a lot of it no one "gets" it all perfectly as we endured it. "What if someone existed who always felt what we felt?" He does. God gets it. (I believe where Oord goes in this ch will remind me of Moltmann's "Crucified God" where he tells the story of Auschwitz prisoners. [Edit: he did. Amazing story.]

"An empathetic God not only feels our suffering but also prompts others to love in specific ways."

Pay attention to this. God may be placing you in just the place to love someone like and for Him.
"...God always feels our pain...we can sometimes feel God's love," is a walk aways from ch 2, but just a small slice out of the total chapter. Another of the major take aways is practically why we should be cautious and always nuance certain concepts like immutable and impassive when we speak about God, if we even speak about them.
Oord finishes off this chapter by listing six ways one can more greatly experience the presence of God. Great suggestions; practical suggestions.

Ch 3:

"To be Transformed we must transform our beliefs."

This chapter is where Oord speaks to divine healing. Rightly, he makes the point that divine healing must make sense of those who are and arent healed: the "why" must reflect a loving God. "God is omnipresent and omniloving." With that in mind it is antithetical to ask God to come help us (or, might I add, to "invite God in" via prayer during a time of study or to ask him to be with us...hes already there, he already is). So what does an omnipresent, omniloving God look like?

"God is always at work everywhere healing to the utmost possible, given the circumstances."

Also revelant to this topic, God works alongside people and creation.

"All healing--no matter how it occurs--has God as its source."

This was an interesting chapter because as I lean on the spiritual side heavier when dealing with this topic (the battle of God against evil personified), while Oord leans on the physical. Not that he is discounting God but that God is battling physical roadblocks, so to say, all the way down to a cellular or possibly subatomic level. While I still personally throw my weight behind the battle being in the spiritual realm I have no doubt that this, like much of theology may end up being a situation where we are both right: God battles the physical and the evil spiritual to achieve our healing. God doesnt always get what He wants (God would have it that none perish).

Ch 4:

Oord begins the next chapter with a deep question, "if good comes from suffering and God wants what's good, is suffering Gods will?"

Great question.

After speaking about Joni Tada's life, what she overcame, and how, against what she says, God wasnt punishing her with a broken neck, we get the following: "...God squeezes good out of the evil He didnt want in the first place. To reconstruct, we should believe God responds to evil by working with creation for good." This to highlight that in spite of the horrible injury she got so long ago, an injury God did not cause, He worked [synergeo: being a partner in labor] it for the good of those who love Him.

"Believing everything happens for a (divinely ordained) reason makes no sense." As an amen to this: if everything happened for a divine reason then God is the origin of good and evil and we have no need for Satan, nor have we ever had a need for him. That is saying that the God who is holy love is a kind of love that we cant understand, and the word love means something much more evil and sinister when attributed to God than it does when attributed to man. This would mean that human conception of love is kinder and more pure than Gods. If that is the case then what does "love" even mean, are we to love God and neighbor in the same way this picture of God has loved us?

"Evil is not part of a divine conspiracy."

Oord ends this chapter speaking to sin and evil bring their own horrible outcomes; God doesnt bring the pain.

Ch. 5:
Oord begins this chapter with a wonderful concept.

"Creatures play a necessary part in God's goals to restore creation and help us flourish. Let's call this radical belief 'indispensable love synergy.'"

Synergy indicates that this is a working together of, for instance, two forces, and in this case they are working together for a mutuality desired outcome: the restoration of creation.

"Believing God's love is relational and uncontrolling gives life meaning, because it implies that our lives matter."

The main point behind Oord's indispensable love synergy is that if we are creatures working synergistically with God then we should be about our Fathers business in this world. He makes a point to properly translate the ground for "synergy:" Rm 8:28 from the RSV shows that God is not playing favorites, He "works for good with those who love Him." I imagine those who dont love Him arent looking to work with Him.

In addressing the afterlife I believe Oord does justice to a loving God. The relentless love view is a view of God who never stops loving and seeking a relationship with us. Never. I'm reminded here of how the gates of the New Jerusalem never shut.

This was a very good and accessable book. Oord laid out a theodicy which should help people heal; a healed people is what God wants.

Technical stuff:
I think the world of you, Doc. I disagree with you in one area which I mentioned above: I dont discount at all that free people are using their freewill to do that which God doesnt want, and this could possibly work down to the subatomic level (you introduced me to this concept in The Uncontrolling Love of God). But I believe theodicy takes on more dimensions when one involves evil personified. I also dont believe you make a theological sacrifice by seeing Satan involved. I know that you may disagree for other reasons and that's cool. You have a gift, Doc, keep writing.

[Hope Liverman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like this book -- it presents a kind God. A God who didn't do this to me, a God who didn't abandon my mother, my brother, my family. Oord writes to survivors, perhaps others who haven't lived through the bleakest depths of hell/evil cannot appreciate a book like this as much as survivors can. This book offers a palpable answer to the "problem of evil," and provides a framework to support believing in God despite horrors.
I did not love the writing style -- an editor may have really been able to "drive the points home" more cohesively -- however, I appreciate the concepts.

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

God can't
How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, or Other Suffering
By Thomas Jay Oord

SacraSagePress.com
© 2019 SacraSage Press and Thomas Jay Oord



One of the most difficult issues faced by those who are pastors/clergy/theologians is the problem of evil (theodicy). The simplistic answer often tends to be, we cannot fully know Holy Mystery. Another fall back is shit happens and stoicism is the answer. These responses may work for the moment but the existential issue lurks.

When we pull back the language, we discover what is at stake is the morality of God. I remember at the funeral of two teenage brothers, a nice Christian woman trying to console the parents with God takes the best for angels. My friend, later, throwing beer bottles into the sky, said " f you God, you are evil."

Tried to bring my theology influenced by David Ray Griffin (his book on theodicy was crucial in my responses pastorally) I wish I had Thomas book to leave with him, and to give to others who were overwhelmed by a theology of a god less moral and compassionate than us. As it happens, Thomas and I shared the same teacher. As well he brings to the issue years of theological reflection. He also is able to address the evangelicals and liberals in this book. It is a follow up to his excellent book,The Uncontrolling love of God.

What is at stake is nothing more than the morality of God.

The book has five chapters dealing with tragedy,abuse, and other suffering. He presents clear ideas building on the major ideas, the argument that God Can’t , each building on the other, until the reader has a coherent view of Tom’s picture.

Idea 1: God cannot Prevent Evil. It is important because can't is not won't. This deals with the idea of self-limiting, which still opens God to some responsibility for evil. "To make sense of the idea that God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly, we need something more. For various reasons — including the needless pain and suffering we experience — it makes sense to think God’s love is inherently uncontrolling." This idea grounds a reframing of what is God's nature. This chapter is a radical view of God that makes God worthy of worship (ANWhitehead)

Idea 2: This chapter deals with the problem of folk wisdom and gives us a new way of dealing with suffering

Thomas deals with the idea that suffering makes us stronger. He puts to rest any idea, like God does not send more than we can handle. God does not cause our suffering for a higher purpose or reason; God suffers with us. God does not create our suffering and God wishes it had never occurred. He points out some suffering rather than making us stronger actually makes us weaker. Some suffering is more than we can stand and needs to be named for what it is and work to overcome it.

Idea 3: God is working to heal us. It is not divine intervention if God Can’t. It is because we live in a relational world that healing comes through a multitude of sources. This chapter raises questions about how to understand miracles or natural pathways Thomas gives us a view that is informed by biblical scholarship and science and psychology. It move us away from magical thinking.

Idea 4: Thomas deals with how bad things can be a platform for good outcomes. He rejects that bad things are sent to us to build character or punish. Rather God squeezes good from bad. It is important to the nuance he makes. God does not cause bad things to happen in order to bring good things about. By rejecting the idea that bad things are sent to make us better, or are punishments, he moves us to see real evil as evil, now how to react is the question.It’s a lie that God allows evil for some greater good. Starting there we are freed from theologies that make God a monster. Thomas says "God works to wring well-being from wrong-being." God works with the world as it is to energize us to work for well being. Our cooperation can lead to something good.

"If God doesn’t want, cause, or allow evil, we should feel no obligation to thank God for it. Evil is not part of a divine conspiracy. Making sense of gratitude requires that we believe God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly. God needs our cooperation." If God were all powerful in physical ways, we human creatures would be afterthoughts, hamsters on a wheel simply living out a foreordained divine play. God needs us to work for beauty and compassion and justice. We matter.To exist, and to act, God doesn’t need us, however needs us to heal the world

Idea 5: Thomas writes "The fifth belief we need to reconstruct our lives is also radical. We sometimes need radical ideas to get at truth. They help us make sense of our lives and the world. Many conventional ideas haven’t helped us make sense of what God is doing in the face of evil.

True beliefs, even if radical, set us free! "

God needs our cooperation to make this world beautiful. He says "Let’s call this radical belief “love synergy.” It is crucial that God and we work together to make a better world. To work with those for whom life has been broken. We have to join in love synergy to support those who have experienced negativity.This is the summation of the idea that the nature of God is uncontrolling and we are crucial to this project

This is a book we can use for our own growth in theology, to have on hand to share and belongs in every library.

George Hermanson.

[Katedurie50 · Rating 4 out of 5]

The greatest strength of this is its simplicity and accessibility; it would indeed be suitable fodder for group discussions. It's anecdotal, drawing much evidence from painful lives. The views it feels it has to demolish don't trouble me; they are probably much more apparent in American Evangelical culture though not unknown elsewhere. Its conclusions, if differently expressed, are not dissimilar to ones I have held for some time. But I'd like a little more rigorous engagement with the parts of the Bible that prove troublesome for this thesis; for my money, the Book of Job has something going for it.

[Vicki McKenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sensible answers for hard questions

I enjoyed this read; It made sense. The only reason for 4 stars instead of 5 is because I was hoping for a slightly more academic approach. This book reads like a conversation with a friend. It feels thoughtful, kind, and refreshing.

[Maureen Russell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book really had potential. It has some very interesting ideas that I’m willing to look at further, but it was disappointing in a few ways. It never addressed prayer and the role that it plays or spiritual warfare, which I think are both huge components to the questions he was trying to answer.

[Craig Bergland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply outstanding! Essential reading for anyone who ponders God, or suffering, or evil. Oord is s great thinker and writes in a way that is accessible to the non-specialist. This book contains food for thought, reflection, and meditation. Don't miss it! Highly recommended!

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of these ideas don't give me the same comfort as they do the author, but I appreciate the angle and found much of it encouraging.

[Matthew Dimick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thomas Oord’s book fails on a multitude of levels: as a Christian theological thesis, a guide for spiritual caregivers, and as an accurate representation of reality.

In brief, Oord is offering an apologetic to the problem of why there is suffering/evil in the world while Christians worship an all-powerful and all-loving God. Oords “solution” is that God simply CAN’T. God CAN’T stop terrible, horrible things.

And therein lies the problem inherent in this text: Oord is seeking a “solution” to a problem—this is not a genuine search for an answer to a deep metaphysical question. He’s not interested in confronting the implications of this question—especially if those answers lead the reader towards questioning the existence of God—he’s trying to SAVE the Christian God from a harsh reality. Oord’s diluted deity serves this purpose.

BEFORE I dive into specific criticisms, I offer this:

Hypothetically, if Oord we were to withhold criticism grounded in the real experience of others, the biblical text, ignore orthodox theology, or disregard the potential harm in the lives of those receiving spiritual care—Oord’s solution is just… sad. The theology/God fanfiction presented is lackluster, limp, and has depressing implications. Oord’s depiction of God is as a powerless all-loving cosmic being, destined to spend eternity bearing witness to the horrific suffering of his creations. This God must acutely feel the pain of ALL living things, yet the God who created the world with a word is unable to do more than FEEL with his creation and offer some vague influence. This pathetic divine being experiencing what amounts to eternal torment is the best he can come up with; he’d rather defend a weak, useless God than contend with the vindictive, fickle, jealous, punishing, and confusing God of the bible.

This text says a lot about how far Christian theologian will go to disregard ta very simple “solution” to the problem of evil: there is no God. The idea that there is no God who sets an ultimate meaning for the universe is so terrifying, Oord would rather believe in a useless divine figure. A sort of powerless figure-head of a God.

RECOMMENDATION: If the reader is interested in a book that is sincere about exploring theologies of grief (especially in the context of pastoral care) and maintains a Christian worldview, I would strongly recommend J. Timothy Allen’s A THEOLOGY OF GOD-TALK: THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEART.

If you’re interested in specific criticism, I invite you to explore the following criticisms from a chaplain who makes the provision of multifaith/interfaith spiritual care his professional concern:
GOD’S LIMITATIONS: Oord’s primary thesis is that God doesn’t not prevent or rescue humans from suffering because GOD CAN’T. Oord throws a lot of reasons for these limitations at the wall to see what sticks, which include some novel and silly ideas.

One of these limitations is set by a very restrictive idea of free-will imposed by love (see below). But even more ridiculous is the notion that the great creator of the universe, who created the world with a simple word, is prohibited from intervening unless “the conditions are right”. This includes the free-will of humans down to microbes—and ridiculously extends to the physical universe. A REAL EXAMPLE from this book is as follows: The God who created the world, who set the universe in motion, wrote the laws of physics, and created volcanos cannot stop one from erupting because “he doesn’t have a body to sit on it.”

LOVE & FREE-WILL: Love and free-will bear most of the burden for God’s limitations. But even the reasoning behind this becomes a ridiculous notion. That to truly love, one must be completely free to love. Which becomes “one must not be prohibited in any way from any action whatsoever and the consequences of anyone else’s actions or the natural state of the universe.” Oord clarifies this is not a “clock-maker” theology—he maintains that this God is an active, loving, involved presence. But if that’s the case, it makes for a neglectful diety.

The Christian metaphor as God as a Father is predominant in most Christian literature: God, the creator, is like a parent who loves us perfectly. However, the metaphor illuminates the shortcomings of Oord’s proposol: I myself and a parent of a toddler. I do desire my child to love me. And my child’s love comes from both an affinity towards me and a desire to have their needs met. But to say primary priority as a parent is to receive love from my child, would make me an irresponsible parent. Indeed, nurturing and protecting them is much more important than manipulating or dictating their feelings. How incredibly SELFISH would it be for me to allow them to wander in the street to preserve some idealized concept of free-will rather than disrupt their freedom (stop them from stepping in front of a car) in the face of physical obliteration? I vaccinate my child against their will to save them from the ravages of disease. I bathe my child against their will to preserve their health and sanitize them.

What a failure of a parent I would be if my own needs to be freely loved took a higher priority than doing something to prevent their suffering.

And this doesn’t need to extend to the active choices that children make that upset their parents—I’ve met with many parents in pediatric spiritual care who would do ANYTHING to save their child from CANCER. And they are just human parents loving! How much greater SHOULD the love of an eternal God be… and yet. That healing is withheld by Oord’s God.

EMPATHY: The reality of Oord’s beliefs is that we live in a world where God cannot stop evil or suffering. Oord’s consolation prize in the face of God’s powerlessness is to offer God’s empathy. Empathy to Oord means that, even though God cannot relieve a person of their suffering, they feel WITH the person, experiencing their anger, sadness, and pain. In my experience, to many Christians this idea is a source of comfort—that their God suffers alongside them. But for many, many others, this if a flaccid promise.

The failure of this consolation is in no small part, attributed to the failing of theologians in understanding the literature and role of empathy. Oord’s ideology stops short of understanding the full requirements to meet the criteria of empathy. In summary, empathy requires more than simply “feeling with”. Theresa Wiseman, a nursing scholar proposes four qualities of empathy: (1) Perspective Taking, (2) non-judgement, (3) recognizing the emptions of others, and then (4) communicating that recognition back. Oords understanding of empathy falls short of primarily the 4th--COMMUNICATING empathy back to the sufferer. When a person who is suffering cries out to a silent God, it is the lack of communication that deepens their suffering. God CAN’T stop suffering and God apparently CAN’T tell you anything. Oord’s solution to this would be comical if it wasn’t such a cheap answer.

RELIEF FROM SUFFERING: Oord utilizes a form of theological trauma porn (a series of traumatic events in people’s lives) to shock his reader and evoke strong emotions. Though his God fails to prevent such tragedies involving the loss of jobs, limbs, and lives of children, Oord attempts to demonstrate that God is still important. He describes a God that “works with us” to offer relief. In reality, every proposal Oord offers from how God does relieve us in suffering is sourced by something completely independent of God: e.g. meditation, therapy, medical interventions, the “love of a child,” and even a dance camp scholarship. God shares credit for medical interventions and the world of healthcare: God “works alongside those who heal,” says Oord. But there is no demonstrable evidence of this work. How is God doing anything if he is so constrained by such limitations? Working with implies shared contribution—instead, the only thing Oord’s God is successful at is taking credit for the labor of others (even if they aren’t Christian!)

HEAVEN’S WHERE THE HEALING IS AT: Even in the face of death, Oord tries to salvage the nature of God as loving. The TRUE healing, according to Oord, happens in heaven. Even if we are murdered, raped, mutilated, starved or destroyed in this world—we have an opportunity to be healed (unless you go to Hell).
Apart from being insensitive to real trauma, this just lacks internal verisimilitude—it’s inconsistent with the theology of the book: is free-will suspended in heaven? God can force healing in heaven just not on earth? Does God have a body now? Do the limitations of this virtue no longer apply? Heaven is a place where there is no suffering… but why? Why then and not now? What conditions exist in Heaven that God refuses to implement on earth? I don’t remember any of this from the bible…

LET’S TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE: Oord makes use of several classic fallacies in his text. The most obvious is the appeal to authority (standard for Christian writers) which is “the bible agrees with me.” He makes this appeal in the introduction and then suspends practically all engagement. He attempts reinterpreting some significant texts because they don’t function with his narrative, and ignores the most troubling aspects of Job. This is necessary because of both the violence and the power God demonstrates in the Hebrew bible: this is a God who commands the killing of infants, rains plagues down upon the Egyptians, creates and destroy with a word, sends fire from the sky, etc. This God is too troublesome for Oord so he pivots to a New Testament focus.

JESUS: Jesus is Oord’s go-to though. The loving dude who was the embodiment of God. And the word “embodiment” is doing some very heavy lifting because Jesus could DO stuff because he HAD AN ACTUAL BODY. Oord gives some examples of how if Jesus saw someone being raped or murdered or robbed, he’d TOTALLY step in and do something about it. And he could, because Jesus has a body. But God, you see—doesn’t have a body. But Jesus didn’t perform his miracles with his body—many were done with a simple word of his mouth (akin to the God of the OT!). Yet somehow the God of heaven is unable perform supernaturally as Jesus does.

The same principle of looking to Jesus to determine the nature of God is also flawed by some of the behaviors seen in Jesus. For example, the story of a Canaanite woman who pleads with Jesus to heal her daughter. According to Oord, God doesn’t withhold healing if you don’t pray or plead—and yet, this is exactly what Jesus requires from this woman before healing her child (but not before calling her a dog and refusing to heal her based on her ethnicity.) Even the all-loving Jesus can be as fickle as the God of heaven.

ATHEISM: Oord’s introduction is fascinating because it could serve as a preamble for an atheist argument. It’s as if he’s got all of the data correct, but comes up with an absurd answer—managing, no doubt, to frustrate fundamentalist and atheist alike!

Oord wants to be sure that his reader knows that the counterargument for his proposal, atheism, is stupid. But does he engage in any of the literature or cite any atheist philosophers? No. The only “reason” he gives for rejecting athism is that he must maintain a world with ultimate meaning and that can only come from God. All other sources of meaning he disparages or disregards. This sets up a binary of “Don’t believe in God vs. Belief in the Oord’s God”—ignoring the numerous art, philosophy, literature, poetry, film, academic discussions, and religions that offer a multitude of alternatives. I reiterate again, this books purpose is to preserve Oord’s worldview at any cost.

CONCLUSION: Every person is entitled to their own meaning-making. This individual project might involve the shaping of a person’s own views which may include belief in the supernatural, understandings of the universe, personal projects, relationships, or connection. This meaning-making is individualistic and shaped by personal experiences. Good spiritual care and chaplaincy is about meeting people where they are at and exploring this meaning, wherever it comes from. Meaning may indeed how that be shaped by a person’s religion; in-turn, a person may struggle to reconcil a traumatic event with preconceived beliefs about the nature of the universe. Sometimes spiritual care is accompanying a person who is departing from previously held beliefs as they content with their global meaning and a specific situation [See Crystal L. Park’s research on meaning-making].

If what Oord was writing about was his own, personal journey to this belief—I would take no issue. There are many accounts people have written about their faith post-traumatic incident. Those often speak to specific incidents and come from a person’s own sense of meaning.

However, Oord is not writing a memoire, he writes from position as an authority. He not only shares his personal belief as an outcome of his theological discipline, he demonstrates disdain for any personal theology that does not align with his own. This is most on display when he discusses Joni Eareckson Tada’s books about her own experience living as a quadriplegic with depression. Oord cannot abide her belief that God would allow bad things to happen either as part of a plan or as a punishment/discipline for past or future behaviors. This is not an appropriate modeling of empathy or spiritual care.

Oord’s approach faulty and problematic. If Oord’s God is the God of Christianity—I fail to see the appeal.

[Taylor Simpson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thank goodness, God is not in control.

I’m one of the last people to tell someone I am familiar with even a significant fraction of the diverse range of views people hold relating to God and all the machinations related to the deity. There are some areas of theology I’ve encountered that go so deep, and get so specific and niche, it seems like the people discussing the topic are speaking another language (most of the time, it’s literally Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, but you get my point). I mention this to say it should come as no surprise that, before I came across this book, I was not at all familiar with the view of God held by the author and laid out therein. My guess is that not many of those who read this will be familiar either, especially not those who don’t frequent deeper studies of theology.

In light of the pull-quote at the top of this review, one might initially get the impression that Thomas Jay Oord’s book is an explanation and defense of a kind of atheistic position. The title of the book--God Can’t (GC)--might reinforce that impression, as well.

No doubt entitled to draw attention and trigger theologically-inclined readers’ heresy instrumentation, Oord’s book is not, in fact, a refutation of the theistic worldview, nor is it strictly a book by some long-lost heretic, peddling their ‘unique’ view of God to - well, actually, I’ll put a pin in that. You can read the book and decide for yourself, but I’ll leave this latter possibility an open question for now.

It will be difficult for me to not dive headlong into a rip-and-tear demolition of Oord’s posited position in this review (in the limited capacity I would be capable of doing this). However, I must admit that my disagreement--note: VEHEMENT disagreement--with the author’s view is very influential in rating his work merely two stars. I don’t have some kind of methodical, mechanical standard by which I judge all of the nonfiction I read, but I try my very best to not let my agreement or disagreement with the author sully (or inflate) my opinion of the book in a more objective light. This is obviously impossible to do in a pure way, but I will put it out in the open that I find Oord’s position detrimental as a Christian; his work suffers from his poor theology and philosophy.

Now, as I said, I won’t try in this review to bandy philosophy and theology with someone whose life’s work is literally devoted to these kinds of things--Oord is leaps and bounds above where I will probably ever be in terms of comprehension and application of the heights and depths of the study of God and other philosophical issues. However, this doesn’t mean that, even though I might not be able to write a peer-reviewed paper refuting his position, I am unable to see where he goes wrong and where he seems to fumble his ideas and the source material he claims to be working from. BUT this review is not fully about that; I would love to read someone ELSE refuting his position in detail, but that will not be found in this review.

Let’s start with the positives.

Oord is a tremendous writer. He’s clearly as intelligent as he is articulate. He liberally uses personal stories (from friends or his own experience) relevant to the topic he’s discussing to help make his points and drive them home for the reader. I really appreciate the way GC is laid out and how logically he’s arranged the material. He clearly has a heart for people who are suffering and does a humbling job of lifting up voices that many of us would prefer to overlook, if we’re honest. You can tell he is being entirely authentic with his work and is writing from a place of true conviction and a desire for others to be exposed to the changes of mind and heart he’s undergone through his faith journey. GC is actually a great book, as a book.

That, of course, brings us to the negatives.

It might help to lay out here exactly what GC is and what Oord sees its purpose as. Essentially, GC is a popular-level theology book that attempts to propose a solution to the problem of evil that is unique and, well, strange compared to the more traditional views held on the topic. At its most basic level, Oord’s view posits that evil and suffering exists and God does (seemingly) nothing about these things because God CAN’T (hence the name of the book). Those unfamiliar with such a position, as I was, will (like me) likely have an initial reaction in the realm of ‘What?’ or ‘Uhhhhhh….’ or ‘Soooo, heresy?’ I will admit, however, that, although at the end of my time exploring Oord’s view in this book I still disagree (STRONGLY) with the view, it DOES end up making a little more sense than my initial impressions allowed me to consider. Granted, you have to squint your mind a little, overlook some obvious passages of the Christian Scriptures, and appeal to mystery at odd places, but Oord’s view isn’t entirely incoherent. (Or, again, maybe it is actually incoherent and I’m not equipped to see the contradictions.)

The foundational concept on which Oord’s view (called ‘essential kenosis’, by the way) is built, is the idea that God’s love is ‘uncontrolling’. God, by his nature, CANNOT force or coerce a person to love him, follow him, or do anything else. God must allow creatures to be free in all things at all times. He is UNABLE to intervene in the life of a free creature. More radically, as the view is unfolded, God also cannot intervene in ANY part of creation--the freedom of creation as a whole cannot be intervened with by a God who is defined by ‘uncontrolling’ love. Therefore, basically, this offers a solution to why not only evil exists, but also why ‘natural’ evil and suffering takes place: God cannot do anything about them.

I do not at all wish to misrepresent Oord in my broad strokes of speaking about his view, but these are the impressions I have of his position based on my reading. I’m sure he would have some kind of answers to my questions and rebuttals to his view, but I can’t help but remain firmly rooted not only in my own prior view of the problem of evil, but also in my opposition to his view that I now feel like I have a decent grasp of. In spite of its odd implications and (to me) shoddy foundations, the essential kenosis view is a view that is worth some consideration, but ultimate rejection.

In my opinion, Oord’s view seems to turn God into a powerless--yet well-intentioned--voyeur, unable to lift the least finger to do anything about the suffering of the creatures he cares so deeply for. In some mysterious way, this God is still able to ‘influence’ and ‘inspire’ creatures and creation to ‘cooperate’ and achieve his purposes sometimes, but it would seem to be a very poor way of doing things. Ultimately, it seems to me that essential kenosis actually doesn’t even offer any kind of solution to the problem of evil, and I can’t at all imagine what kind of hope or encouragement such a view would offer those who are suffering.

‘Why am I suffering? Does God care?’

‘Evil exists and suffering occurs because God can’t do anything about it alone! God is totally unable to help you without the cooperation of the rest of creation!’

‘Oh… okay.’

Of course, Oord would disagree with some of the things I’m implying about his view, since he has altered and changed the definition of some of these common terms (‘love’, ‘power’, etc.). However, there just seems to come a point when the altering of not only a word here and there, but also the very nature of God himself to solve one aspect of a counterargument to Christianity becomes ad hoc.

As I said above, Oord seems extremely authentic and deeply convicted about these views. He has a real heart for the lost and the afflicted, but it also seems to me that he has shredded his view of God into unrecognition for the sake of those undergoing suffering. I fail to see how things like miracles are possible on his view; so many counter examples from Scripture come to mind when I think about some of the claims he’s made about God; what are the good of prayers on this view? I could go on and on.

I’ll just say that I would not at all recommend this book for those who are suffering and looking for something--anything different--to let them hold onto their belief in God in spite of their pain. Even with all of the stories sprinkled throughout of people having come across Oord’s view and experienced an epiphany in how they started viewing God in their suffering, I still can’t imagine anyone serious about theology and truth coming to rest with a view that essentially ties God’s hands behind his back and puts duct tape over his mouth. This may sound extreme or belittling, but I don’t intend to insult Oord or anyone who finds solace in his position. I just deeply urge those who are suffering to not give up the long-held and Scripture/philosophy-tested essentials of God just to feel some semblance of peace. I believe the truth is far more important and there is very little truth in essential kenosis, unfortunately.

Only those who are interested in unique theological positions, or interesting responses to the problem of evil should pick this book up. It’s a popular-level work, as I said, and so there is not a terrible amount of ‘meat’ on the theological bones Oord throws out there, but there is enough to get started with.

I end with an emphatic ‘God CAN’.

[Luke Schmeltzer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Read as a part of research for a paper refuting Oord's "Uncontrolling Love" thesis. The reason that Oord's God Can't is because it doesn't exist. Oord's God is a loving but imaginary friend whom he invented to solve the problem of evil because the biblical answer was not satisfying enough. The powerless love force that Oord describes is not the true and living God, the triune God of the Scriptures, the God incarnate in Jesus Christ.

[JC · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you or someone you know blames God for everything or thinks that God predetermined everything aspect of our lives, this a great book to recommend, to challenge that ideology.

[Randy Baker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who has ever considered the connection between God and evil has likely never been truly satisfied with the answers we are able to come up with. For some people it becomes a matter of faith, believing that a loving God truly does have everything under control and God remains on track to bring about the ultimate good. Others in the midst of troubles have difficulty with faith, and they might raise and shake a defiant fist towards God, demanding a satisfactory answer as to why God is allowing this evil to swallow them up.

In this latest book, Oord advances his thoughts on this difficult subject. I have only recently become aware of the work of Thomas Jay Oord. This latest book, God Can't, expands upon and clarifies questions I had from his last book, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence.

As a Christian, what Oord proposes is controversial and counter intuitive to the traditional thinking and understanding Christians have on this difficult subject. I personally reject some of the idea's he proposes in this book, skeptical of other ideas, but I do find several key ideas compelling.

I have long struggled with the idea that a loving God is capable of allowing evil to pervade throughout history. My faith in God has never been related to my comfort and security, but my acceptance of those statements that encourage people to have faith fail to satisfy me. I hear the prayers of people, calling upon God to intervene in situations and at times one wonders if God is even listening, God fails to intervene. Why?

My understanding and view of God's love has transformed over the last year. Oord's framework has helped me shape and articulate my new view of God, solidifying my view that God is love, and God is only capable of behaving lovingly.

[Dan Haley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scary thought! But a MUST read and consider for anyone!

My first introduction to Thomas J Oord was The Uncontroling Love Of God. God Can't is equally, if not more, thought provoking. I have been a believer in openness theologies for some time, so for me the contents of this book are not a stretch or faith questioning. They are faith grounding. GOD CAN NOT act outside of love, it is impossible. God is love. I think most Christians do not truly comprehend what this means, God is love. Most believers try to describe God as loving but we fail miserably. Instead we describe a kind of love that only exists in abusive relationships.

Mr. Oord talks about fear, what he fears. I know God will not punish me for it, but I fear how inadequately I have described God to others in the past. This book will be a treasure for me always. 1 Corinthians 13 is referenced several times; this is my new project, reading this passage and working to understand that it describes the God I love. This is the God the apostle Paul tells me to imitate.

If you are unsure or afraid of a book with such a shocking title, don't be! Read it all, answer the questions, and consider what is presented.

I am reviewing the Kindle edition. The text flows well and footnotes are easily referenced. It is also easy to return to the text after reading the notes. That being said, I will be purchasing at least one paper copy to share with others!

[Blesson John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I will start off by saying that if you're a Christian and have grown up in a typical Christian setting, this book will probably f*ck up your theology of suffering, so tread with caution if you'd rather not go there right now.

I read this book after listening to Thomas Oord on nearly every podcast he's been on. Overall, the book itself is very well articulated, building from the basic idea that God's love is an uncontrolling love but this means God has some inherent limitations as a result. My own journey has included much time in more hyper-Reformed/Calvinistic theologies, which I strongly disagree with these days for the most part as there are many issues I have with those camps that lead me to conclude that I frankly find no compelling reason to believe in this God if this is what he's like.

The logic proposed by Oord is a paradigm shift and makes a lot of sense to me in one sense, as I've thought through it over a few months from the podcasts and now after reading the book. On the other hand, there are some interesting and terrifying implications that this framework brings about that I'm still unsure about and need to mull over and possibly dialogue with him about to understand his perspective a little better and hear his rebuttals to my points. I still highly recommend this book, especially for those who have been walking through suffering.

[Jeremy Sallin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is a good writer and communicator, and he is obviously well studied and thoughtful. My rating is based on the approachable presentation of the content and the author's impetus for writing, which is is desire to comfort and ease suffering. His argument is logical and not without basis, but it's more of a philosophical argument than an argument based on scripture. I think there is more scriptural evidence for God's complete sovereignty, which includes a lot of mystery.

As a caution, this book could either comfort you, or it could really be quite a shock. There were parts of his argument that were downright frightening to me initially. But at the same time, I suppose they could be comforting to others. The author doesn't seem to believe that God has the power to heal, raise the dead, and defend/protect us from evil unilaterally without our prayers or participation. I don't think the author's explanation/definition of the term "almighty" is compelling.

On the other hand, the author calls us to action as Christians and cautions us to stop using hurtful platitudes to comfort people who are suffering or grieving. He also talks a bit about the theories of hell, which I think every Christian should be taught about. Take it or leave it, this book is thought provoking.

[Leonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This enlightening book about God and his/her power in the world to change things pretty much affirmed what I already believe, that God is not able to intervene in the lives of humans to make everything nice and perfect. Of course that seems to have been obvious for some time. However it seems as if many assume the opposite and when God doesn't do what they think should be done, they blame the results on God, and reject the supreme creator, or claim that God is unloving. The best think about this book was, in fact, the author's emphasis on the "uncontrollable" love that God has for the world and everyone in it a love that is with us regardless of what we face and endure. IN that sense this book is quite comforting and biblically sound.