Photo by Pawan Sharma on Unsplash
Imagine that you are a Christian. You truly believe that God is love. Can you look around at the biological world and say that you see that love in action? Can you look at the microbial world, at bacteria-eating viruses for example, and say the same?
I think you can, but only if you acknowledge that divine love is more than loving-kindness. Only if you recognize that, in some mysterious way, divine love includes the bacteriophages: bacteria-eating viruses. Only if you understand that divine love encompasses the vitality and diversity of all life forms, even those that seem harsh or brutal to us.
This broader perspective on divine love challenges us to see love in the predator-prey relationships, in the cycles of life and death, and in the complex interactions of all living things. It calls us to recognize that divine love is not limited to gentle, nurturing care but also includes the fierce, relentless drive for survival and growth that characterizes the natural world.
By expanding our understanding of love to include this ecological perspective, we can begin to see the interconnectedness and balance of life as expressions of divine love. This does not diminish the suffering and pain that exist, but it does offer a way to see them within a larger, more complex picture of life where every being plays a role in the unfolding story of creation.
Thus, divine love is not just about comforting the weak but also about empowering the strong, not just about soothing pain but also about driving growth, not just about preserving life but also about embracing death as part of the cycle of renewal. In this way, we can affirm that God is love, even in the midst of the raw and often harsh realities of the biological world.
Our image of love is de-sentimentalized. It is more honest to the vibrancy of life and to tragic beauty. We still lift up love as the highest ideal; we still cherish loving-kindness as one of its most beautiful expressions. But we do so with open eyes.
- Jay McDaniel
I think you can, but only if you acknowledge that divine love is more than loving-kindness. Only if you recognize that, in some mysterious way, divine love includes the bacteriophages: bacteria-eating viruses. Only if you understand that divine love encompasses the vitality and diversity of all life forms, even those that seem harsh or brutal to us.
This broader perspective on divine love challenges us to see love in the predator-prey relationships, in the cycles of life and death, and in the complex interactions of all living things. It calls us to recognize that divine love is not limited to gentle, nurturing care but also includes the fierce, relentless drive for survival and growth that characterizes the natural world.
By expanding our understanding of love to include this ecological perspective, we can begin to see the interconnectedness and balance of life as expressions of divine love. This does not diminish the suffering and pain that exist, but it does offer a way to see them within a larger, more complex picture of life where every being plays a role in the unfolding story of creation.
Thus, divine love is not just about comforting the weak but also about empowering the strong, not just about soothing pain but also about driving growth, not just about preserving life but also about embracing death as part of the cycle of renewal. In this way, we can affirm that God is love, even in the midst of the raw and often harsh realities of the biological world.
Our image of love is de-sentimentalized. It is more honest to the vibrancy of life and to tragic beauty. We still lift up love as the highest ideal; we still cherish loving-kindness as one of its most beautiful expressions. But we do so with open eyes.
- Jay McDaniel
Amnipotence and Ecopotence
The Complexities of Divine Love in Open and Relational Theology
One of the virtues of open and relational theology is that it invites us to consider God's relation to all creatures of the known universe: organic and inorganic, microscopic and macroscopic, terrestrial and galactic, visible and invisible. God is amipotent. Thomas Oord and Tripp Fuller write:
"Amipotence describes God’s uncontrolling love for all creatures and all creation. It’s an amipotent God’s nature to love everyone and everything without forcing anyone or anything. An amipotent Spirit will be neither overriding nor absent, neither inactive nor the sole cause of everything, neither utter mystery nor an impersonal force. Like a good mother who neither manipulates nor neglects her children, God can be seen like a universal Mother always influencing for good. Try considering God not as omnipotent nor impotent, but amipotent."
An unintended consequence of open and relational theology is that, if taken seriously, it challenges our overly sentimental understandings of divine love and, perhaps, calls into question the very love it proclaims—especially when we link images of an all-loving God, who like a Mother cares for all of her children, with the harshness of life on earth.
For example, we are forced to link amipotence with predator-prey relations.
Individual sentient beings on Earth often suffer violent deaths in predator-prey relations. Where is the God of love in all of this? Does God suffer with the prey even as God shares in the hunger of the predators? Are predator-prey relations themselves the outcome of a divine lure? If so, is the lure truly loving?
And what happens when we try to link images of an amipotent Spirit with the microbial world? How is the God of love related to the primary aim of many biological entities, especially viruses, which is not to love but rather to be fruitful and multiply? At what point in the evolution of life on Earth does divine love, understood as loving-kindness, become relevant?
*
It helps to be specific, so I offer some examples of predator-prey relations:
The Serengeti Lion and Wildebeest
In the Serengeti ecosystem, lions hunt and kill wildebeest for survival. This predator-prey dynamic is essential for ecological balance, controlling the wildebeest population and preventing overgrazing. However, the brutal reality of a lioness hunting a wildebeest calf can be difficult to reconcile with the concept of a tender, all-loving deity.
The Arctic Fox and Lemming Cycle
In the Arctic tundra, the population of Arctic foxes is closely tied to the abundance of lemmings, their primary prey. When lemming populations crash, foxes face starvation. This cyclical relationship highlights the vulnerability and suffering of individual animals in the natural world, challenging the idea of divine compassion and care for every living being.
The Wolf and Deer in Yellowstone
The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park has led to a healthier ecosystem by controlling deer populations. While this predator-prey interaction benefits the overall environment, individual deer face the constant threat of predation, raising questions about the presence of individual suffering in a world governed by an all-loving deity.
The Parasitic Wasp and Caterpillar
Some parasitic wasps lay their eggs inside caterpillars, which are eventually consumed from the inside out by the developing larvae. This gruesome process, necessary for the wasps' life cycle, exemplifies extreme suffering and a seemingly indifferent natural order that challenges the notion of a tender divine love for individual creatures.
The Cheetah and Gazelle
The cheetah's incredible speed and hunting prowess are a marvel of nature, yet this comes at the cost of the gazelle's life. The chase, capture, and eventual killing of a gazelle, often involving significant distress and pain, present a stark contrast to the idea of a loving and compassionate God concerned with individual well-being.
The Sea Lamprey and Fish
Sea lampreys attach themselves to fish, feeding on their blood and bodily fluids, often leading to the fish's death. This parasitic relationship, where one creature's survival depends on the suffering of another, highlights the brutality found in nature, questioning the compatibility of such suffering with the existence of a tender, all-loving deity.
These examples illustrate the inherent tension between the observable realities of ecological systems, particularly predator-prey relationships, and the theological concept of an all-loving God who cares deeply for each individual creature.
*
And then there are the small creatures, the "bacteriophage," for example. They are the most abundant biological beings on earth. The term literally means "bacteria eater." It is derived from the Greek words "bakteria" (bacteria) and "phagein" (to eat). Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that infect and replicate within bacteria, often causing the destruction (lysis) of the bacterial cell. The number of phages vastly exceeds the number of grains of sand by several orders of magnitude.
In order to replicate, they must infect host cells and use the host's machinery to reproduce. And yet they have existed much longer than we have: their origins go back four billion years. They may well inherit the earth. If we humans destroy ourselves and many other forms of macroscopic life we've grown to love, they will survive us as stewards of a new creation. In every corner of the world, phages will continue their ceaseless work, maintaining the balance of microbial life. Their resilience and ubiquity will ensure that life, in some form, will persist. They will obey God's command to be fruitful and multiply.
*
So where is the God of love in all of this? Where is the God of amipotence?
Consider the idea that God is within each creature as a lure? As the lion chases the wildebeest, is God within the lion as a lure to kill the wildebeest and also within the wildebeest as a lure to escape the lion?
Consider also the fact of predator-prey relations. Granted that these relations are partly the result of the self-creativity of creatures through natural selection and mutation, where was the lure of God amid their self-creativity? Was it absent entirely? Were the creatures on their own? Or, if present, were they lured, collectively, into just such relations? Put biblically, are predator-prey relations a fall from divine intentions, or a fulfillment of those intentions?
And consider the idea that, as a companion to the world's joys and sufferings, does God 'feel the feelings' of the predators and the prey, such that those feelings, one toward a satisfaction of hunger and one toward escape, are jointly felt? Does God feel each in a spirit of loving-kindness, of tenderness? If so, there must be much pain, and much tragedy, in the divine life.
At the heart of this third question is that of the very nature of love. Does it include empathy, or, to be more precise, "particularized empathy." By particularized empathy, I mean empathy for individual suffering: that is, a sharing in the suffering of other individuals with, in Whitehead's words, "tender care."
*
In order to address these questions, it helps to coin a new term: Ecopotence.
Ecopotence captures the idea that God's power and influence are expressed not only through loving-kindness but through a love of vitality, diversity, and survival. This term emphasizes an ecological perspective, recognizing the diverse ways in which different forms of life interact, thrive, and evolve within their environments. It acknowledges that divine power might be better understood as a guiding presence that fosters balance, diversity, and vitality in the cosmos, even as it also fosters, in human and perhaps other forms of sentient mammalian life, tenderness.
Can something of the truth of amipotence be reclaimed in light of ecopotence? I think so.
First, it is possible that, at a certain stage in the history of the universe, it may have been possible for God to express another, theretofore dormant aim, namely that of loving-kindness or particularized empathy. But that was only possible in a later stage. Love is not relevant to viruses even as it is relevant to humans. Empathy, understood as normative, is a late arrival on the evolutionary stage.
Second, it is possible to expand the notion of love, such that tenderness and particularized empathy are seen as only one part of love, and that a love of vitality and interconnectedness is the more inclusive form of love. Loving-kindness and tenderness are not definitive of love but are expressions of a larger, more complex understanding of love that encompasses the vitality and interconnectedness of all life forms.
These possibilities can be jointly affirmed. We can say yes to kindness and yes to vitality, but only if our understandings of love are de-sentimentalized. At the deepest levels, love must include the bacteriophages who, in their own ways, are loved by the Mother with tender care, even as they may know nothing of the tenderness she feels toward them. Or, for that matter, may know - but in ways we can barely understand.
- Jay McDaniel
One of the virtues of open and relational theology is that it invites us to consider God's relation to all creatures of the known universe: organic and inorganic, microscopic and macroscopic, terrestrial and galactic, visible and invisible. God is amipotent. Thomas Oord and Tripp Fuller write:
"Amipotence describes God’s uncontrolling love for all creatures and all creation. It’s an amipotent God’s nature to love everyone and everything without forcing anyone or anything. An amipotent Spirit will be neither overriding nor absent, neither inactive nor the sole cause of everything, neither utter mystery nor an impersonal force. Like a good mother who neither manipulates nor neglects her children, God can be seen like a universal Mother always influencing for good. Try considering God not as omnipotent nor impotent, but amipotent."
An unintended consequence of open and relational theology is that, if taken seriously, it challenges our overly sentimental understandings of divine love and, perhaps, calls into question the very love it proclaims—especially when we link images of an all-loving God, who like a Mother cares for all of her children, with the harshness of life on earth.
For example, we are forced to link amipotence with predator-prey relations.
Individual sentient beings on Earth often suffer violent deaths in predator-prey relations. Where is the God of love in all of this? Does God suffer with the prey even as God shares in the hunger of the predators? Are predator-prey relations themselves the outcome of a divine lure? If so, is the lure truly loving?
And what happens when we try to link images of an amipotent Spirit with the microbial world? How is the God of love related to the primary aim of many biological entities, especially viruses, which is not to love but rather to be fruitful and multiply? At what point in the evolution of life on Earth does divine love, understood as loving-kindness, become relevant?
*
It helps to be specific, so I offer some examples of predator-prey relations:
The Serengeti Lion and Wildebeest
In the Serengeti ecosystem, lions hunt and kill wildebeest for survival. This predator-prey dynamic is essential for ecological balance, controlling the wildebeest population and preventing overgrazing. However, the brutal reality of a lioness hunting a wildebeest calf can be difficult to reconcile with the concept of a tender, all-loving deity.
The Arctic Fox and Lemming Cycle
In the Arctic tundra, the population of Arctic foxes is closely tied to the abundance of lemmings, their primary prey. When lemming populations crash, foxes face starvation. This cyclical relationship highlights the vulnerability and suffering of individual animals in the natural world, challenging the idea of divine compassion and care for every living being.
The Wolf and Deer in Yellowstone
The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park has led to a healthier ecosystem by controlling deer populations. While this predator-prey interaction benefits the overall environment, individual deer face the constant threat of predation, raising questions about the presence of individual suffering in a world governed by an all-loving deity.
The Parasitic Wasp and Caterpillar
Some parasitic wasps lay their eggs inside caterpillars, which are eventually consumed from the inside out by the developing larvae. This gruesome process, necessary for the wasps' life cycle, exemplifies extreme suffering and a seemingly indifferent natural order that challenges the notion of a tender divine love for individual creatures.
The Cheetah and Gazelle
The cheetah's incredible speed and hunting prowess are a marvel of nature, yet this comes at the cost of the gazelle's life. The chase, capture, and eventual killing of a gazelle, often involving significant distress and pain, present a stark contrast to the idea of a loving and compassionate God concerned with individual well-being.
The Sea Lamprey and Fish
Sea lampreys attach themselves to fish, feeding on their blood and bodily fluids, often leading to the fish's death. This parasitic relationship, where one creature's survival depends on the suffering of another, highlights the brutality found in nature, questioning the compatibility of such suffering with the existence of a tender, all-loving deity.
These examples illustrate the inherent tension between the observable realities of ecological systems, particularly predator-prey relationships, and the theological concept of an all-loving God who cares deeply for each individual creature.
*
And then there are the small creatures, the "bacteriophage," for example. They are the most abundant biological beings on earth. The term literally means "bacteria eater." It is derived from the Greek words "bakteria" (bacteria) and "phagein" (to eat). Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that infect and replicate within bacteria, often causing the destruction (lysis) of the bacterial cell. The number of phages vastly exceeds the number of grains of sand by several orders of magnitude.
In order to replicate, they must infect host cells and use the host's machinery to reproduce. And yet they have existed much longer than we have: their origins go back four billion years. They may well inherit the earth. If we humans destroy ourselves and many other forms of macroscopic life we've grown to love, they will survive us as stewards of a new creation. In every corner of the world, phages will continue their ceaseless work, maintaining the balance of microbial life. Their resilience and ubiquity will ensure that life, in some form, will persist. They will obey God's command to be fruitful and multiply.
*
So where is the God of love in all of this? Where is the God of amipotence?
Consider the idea that God is within each creature as a lure? As the lion chases the wildebeest, is God within the lion as a lure to kill the wildebeest and also within the wildebeest as a lure to escape the lion?
Consider also the fact of predator-prey relations. Granted that these relations are partly the result of the self-creativity of creatures through natural selection and mutation, where was the lure of God amid their self-creativity? Was it absent entirely? Were the creatures on their own? Or, if present, were they lured, collectively, into just such relations? Put biblically, are predator-prey relations a fall from divine intentions, or a fulfillment of those intentions?
And consider the idea that, as a companion to the world's joys and sufferings, does God 'feel the feelings' of the predators and the prey, such that those feelings, one toward a satisfaction of hunger and one toward escape, are jointly felt? Does God feel each in a spirit of loving-kindness, of tenderness? If so, there must be much pain, and much tragedy, in the divine life.
At the heart of this third question is that of the very nature of love. Does it include empathy, or, to be more precise, "particularized empathy." By particularized empathy, I mean empathy for individual suffering: that is, a sharing in the suffering of other individuals with, in Whitehead's words, "tender care."
*
In order to address these questions, it helps to coin a new term: Ecopotence.
Ecopotence captures the idea that God's power and influence are expressed not only through loving-kindness but through a love of vitality, diversity, and survival. This term emphasizes an ecological perspective, recognizing the diverse ways in which different forms of life interact, thrive, and evolve within their environments. It acknowledges that divine power might be better understood as a guiding presence that fosters balance, diversity, and vitality in the cosmos, even as it also fosters, in human and perhaps other forms of sentient mammalian life, tenderness.
Can something of the truth of amipotence be reclaimed in light of ecopotence? I think so.
First, it is possible that, at a certain stage in the history of the universe, it may have been possible for God to express another, theretofore dormant aim, namely that of loving-kindness or particularized empathy. But that was only possible in a later stage. Love is not relevant to viruses even as it is relevant to humans. Empathy, understood as normative, is a late arrival on the evolutionary stage.
Second, it is possible to expand the notion of love, such that tenderness and particularized empathy are seen as only one part of love, and that a love of vitality and interconnectedness is the more inclusive form of love. Loving-kindness and tenderness are not definitive of love but are expressions of a larger, more complex understanding of love that encompasses the vitality and interconnectedness of all life forms.
These possibilities can be jointly affirmed. We can say yes to kindness and yes to vitality, but only if our understandings of love are de-sentimentalized. At the deepest levels, love must include the bacteriophages who, in their own ways, are loved by the Mother with tender care, even as they may know nothing of the tenderness she feels toward them. Or, for that matter, may know - but in ways we can barely understand.
- Jay McDaniel
A Primer on Bacteriophages
The Most Populous Entities on Earth
On Earth, living beings are classified into plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, archaea, animals, and viruses. The most populous of them all are bacteriophages (bacteria-eaters). It is estimated that there are 10³¹ bacteriophages, which translates to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This means these living beings outnumber other entities—such as stars and grains of sand—that we consider staggeringly abundant. There are a billion times more bacteriophages on Earth than stars in the observable universe, and there are ten billion more bacteriophages than every grain of sand on Earth.
Appearance and Size
Bacteriophages have heads containing genetic material, tails that facilitate the transfer of that material into bacteria, and tail fibers that help attach the tail to bacterial surfaces. Not that we can see them with our naked eye. Electron microscopes are needed. They are very, very small, smaller than the bacteria they infect.
Life Cycles
Bacteriophages have complex life cycles that can generally be categorized into two main types: the lytic cycle and the lysogenic cycle. In the lytic cycle, a phage attaches to a bacterium, injects its genetic material, and takes over the host's cellular machinery to produce new phage particles. This process culminates in the lysis, or bursting, of the bacterial cell, releasing new phages to infect other bacteria. Conversely, the lysogenic cycle involves the integration of the phage's genetic material into the bacterial genome, where it can remain dormant for extended periods. This integrated genetic material, called a prophage, replicates along with the host cell's DNA. Under certain conditions, the prophage may exit the bacterial genome and enter the lytic cycle, leading to the production of new phage particles and the eventual destruction of the host cell.
Importance and Applications
Bacteriophages play a crucial role in regulating bacterial communities, maintaining ecological balance, and driving bacterial evolution through horizontal gene transfer. This process allows for the exchange of genetic material between bacteria, contributing to their adaptability and diversity. Furthermore, bacteriophages have garnered significant attention for their potential applications in medicine, particularly in phage therapy. This innovative treatment approach uses bacteriophages to specifically target and destroy antibiotic-resistant bacteria, offering a promising alternative to traditional antibiotics. By harnessing the natural predatory relationship between phages and bacteria, phage therapy holds the potential to combat bacterial infections that are increasingly difficult to treat due to rising antibiotic resistance. Thus, bacteriophages are not only the most numerous entities on Earth but also pivotal in both ecological and medical contexts.
|
|
|
The Microbial Side of God
From a process perspective, if a microbe experiences and responds to its microbial world in any way, it possesses intrinsic value. This value is its self-creativity and self-enjoyment, conscious or unconscious. The intrinsic value of the microbe is derived from its capacity to affect and be affected by its environment, embodying a unique form of self-expression and existence.
Additionally, in process thought, all experiences are interconnected and shared by God. Therefore, God's experience includes the feelings and perceptions of the microbe. God intimately knows what it is like to be a microbe, as all experiences, no matter how minute, contribute to the divine experience. This inclusion signifies that every living entity, including microbes, is part of God.
Consequently, when we contemplate the existence and experiences of microbes, we are also reflecting on the microbial aspect of God. God is thus envisioned as many as well as one, encompassing the multitude of experiences and entities within the universe. This holistic view encourages a deeper appreciation for all forms of life, recognizing the divine presence and value in even the smallest creatures.
Of course, what is "small" is relative. What is "small" to us may be large to something still smaller, and we ourselves will be "small" to things larger than us. In God there is no smallness or largeness. There is only the experience.
We humans cannot and need not "love" all microbes. We must fight some of them. But we can know that when we fight them, we are fighting part of God, too.
- Jay McDaniel
Additionally, in process thought, all experiences are interconnected and shared by God. Therefore, God's experience includes the feelings and perceptions of the microbe. God intimately knows what it is like to be a microbe, as all experiences, no matter how minute, contribute to the divine experience. This inclusion signifies that every living entity, including microbes, is part of God.
Consequently, when we contemplate the existence and experiences of microbes, we are also reflecting on the microbial aspect of God. God is thus envisioned as many as well as one, encompassing the multitude of experiences and entities within the universe. This holistic view encourages a deeper appreciation for all forms of life, recognizing the divine presence and value in even the smallest creatures.
Of course, what is "small" is relative. What is "small" to us may be large to something still smaller, and we ourselves will be "small" to things larger than us. In God there is no smallness or largeness. There is only the experience.
We humans cannot and need not "love" all microbes. We must fight some of them. But we can know that when we fight them, we are fighting part of God, too.
- Jay McDaniel