Michael sat on the edge of his bed in the recovery center, staring at the cross he had carved from a broken piece of wood. For years, his life had been consumed by addiction, his body and spirit worn thin by the weight of shame and self-loathing. But one night, in the depths of despair, an image came to him: Jesus, arms outstretched on the cross, bearing not just the weight of the world but Michael's own pain, mistakes, and brokenness. In that moment, he felt an overwhelming sense of acceptance—not despite his brokenness, but because of it. God was not distant or disgusted; God was there with him, loving him as he was and inviting him toward something better.
That realization became his turning point. Now, each day of recovery is a step toward healing, grounded in the knowledge that he is embraced by a love greater than his failures, a love that asks him to begin again and again, with hope and purpose.
When asked what the heart of the Gospel meant to him, Michael would say with quiet conviction, "For me, it's the fact that Jesus died on the cross for my sins." He would go on to explain how that truth had become the anchor of his life. "I used to think my mistakes defined me," he would say, "but when I picture Jesus on the cross, I see someone who took all my guilt, my shame, my brokenness, and said, 'I’ve got you. You're not alone in this.' That’s what keeps me going every day. It’s not just about what I’ve done—it’s about what God’s love can do in me now." For Michael, this realization wasn’t just a theological idea; it was a lifeline, a reminder that he was always welcome to start again, no matter how many times he stumbled.
From Transaction to Transformation
Rethinking Atonement with Nichole Torbitzky *
In her essay "Amipotence and Atonement," featured in Amipotence (Vol. 2), Nichole Torbitzky offers a creative and compelling open and relational approach to atonement. She challenges the idea that atonement is a transactional act of divine retribution, as framed by the penal substitution theory, which often portrays God as unwilling or unable to accept and love people until punishment is exacted. For many progressively minded Christians, this portrayal is not only theologically problematic but deeply repulsive, suggesting a wrathful and conditional God at odds with the loving parent depicted in the New Testament.
And yet, it is also true that within the hearts of those who hold to penal substitution, there often lies a deeply meaningful idea: that in Jesus’ death, God somehow absorbs the sins and sufferings of the world. For many, this fosters humility, gratitude, and a profound sense of divine solidarity with human brokenness. It functions in their lives to inspire kindness and love, shaping them into more compassionate people. This aspect of the idea resonates with open and relational theologians in the process tradition, who affirm that God absorbs the sins and sufferings of each and all without retaliation, seeking only reconciliation and healing.
Is there a way for open and relational theologians to affirm the core truths and transformative power of this belief, while developing alternative ways of thinking about the atonement that move beyond penal substitution? Let us hope so—for the sake of Michael, and all who seek a vision of God and atonement that is intellectually credible, spiritually profound, and deeply relational.
Nichole Torbitzsky points us in this direction. In what follows I outline her perspective and raise three questions that invite further exploration of her ideas, particularly around Jesus’ role in God’s intentions, the unique goodness his life brings to the world, and the reimagining of the phrase “Jesus died for me” in an open and relational framework. My own hope is that a theory such as hers can make sense, not only to progressively minded Christians but also to people like Michael - for whom the image of Jesus dying on the cross for him was indeed salvific, helping him leave addition and grow into recovery.
In her essay Torbitzky suggests two complementary ways in which God's atoning activity works in the world, both of which require collaboration on the part of creatures, including Jesus.
Moment-by-Moment Invitation
God persistently offers every individual an invitation, in each moment, to align with the "best possible." This hallmark of process theology reflects God’s agency as non-coercive yet persistently persuasive. Divine influence respects human freedom, fostering creativity, love, and right relations within creation. This continual offer of "the best possible" nurtures a dynamic partnership between God and humanity.
Concrete Influence Through Jesus
In addition to these universal invitations, God uniquely influences the world through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Far from being merely a moral example, Jesus’ life represents a profound act of divine intervention—God’s aims perfectly realized in history. Jesus embodies the concrete addition of divine goodness into the world, influencing those receptive to it. His life reinforces God’s ongoing invitations, providing a tangible manifestation of divine love and relationality.
At the heart of Nichole Torbitzky’s perspective is the concept of amipotence—God’s all-loving yet non-controlling nature—which challenges traditional notions of omnipotence by presenting God as a relational partner whose work is rooted in persuasion and collaboration. She emphasizes three key themes: atonement as "at-one-ment," where God persistently seeks to reconcile creation through moment-by-moment invitation and the concrete influence of Jesus; non-coercive influence, where God invites creatures to align with divine possibilities, with Jesus embodying this relational call to justice and harmony; and the reinforcement of divine will, with Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection adding unique goodness to the world as a testament to God’s unwavering commitment to the best possible outcomes.
In effect, Torbitzky envisions atonement as a dynamic and relational process. God’s love works persistently, both moment-by-moment and through Jesus, to guide creation toward justice and harmony. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are integral to God’s ongoing call for right relations among people and with creation.
Response
As an open and relational thinker in the process tradition, I appreciate Torbitzky’s approach and find myself wanting to explore her proposals further. Below I offer three sets of questions that might provoke deeper discussion, along with my own suggested responses.
Jesus’ "Perfect" Expression of God’s Intentions
Torbitzky describes Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as "perfect" expressions of God's intentions for the world. However, perfection can be a complex concept, especially when applied to a human life lived within the constraints of history, culture, and emotion.
Is Torbitzky suggesting that Jesus perfectly aligned with God's aims at every moment of his life, from infancy to his death?
If so, does this imply that Jesus never experienced moments of misunderstanding, struggle, or moral ambiguity?
How might we reconcile such a view with scriptural accounts where Jesus expresses anger, frustration, or even harshness, such as his words to the Syrophoenician woman or his anger in the temple?
Could divine "perfection" include human vulnerability, intense emotions, and apparent failures, rather than excluding them?
Suggestion: Jesus does not need to be entirely sinless to communicate God's intentions through his life, death, and resurrection. Moments of struggle, frustration, or even perceived failure—such as his anger in the temple or his harsh words to the Syrophoenician woman—do not detract from his alignment with God's aims. Instead, they reveal the depth of his humanity and his engagement with the challenges of living a fully relational life. Perfection in divine collaboration may include these moments of emotional intensity, as they demonstrate the vulnerability and authenticity of a life lived in deep connection with God and others.
Goodness Beyond Moral Example
Torbitzky asserts that Jesus’ life adds a "special kind of factual goodness" to the world. This raises intriguing questions about the nature of this goodness:
What is the essence of this goodness that distinguishes it from being merely a moral example?
How does this goodness tangibly transform those who encounter it, beyond inspiring them to follow Jesus’ teachings or emulate his actions?
Could this goodness exist as something relational and dynamic—a force that continues to shape the world, even long after Jesus’ historical life?
Suggestion: This special goodness lies in the field of force that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection generate—a transformative energy that ripples through history and continues to inspire acts of love, justice, and reconciliation. This field of force is not merely an example to follow but a dynamic reality that shapes and reshapes the lives of those who encounter it. It deepens our relationship with God and creation by inviting us into a shared journey of transformation, where love and relationality become central to our existence.
Reinterpreting "Jesus Died for Me"
The phrase "Jesus died for me" carries profound emotional and spiritual significance for many Christians. Yet, in traditional atonement theories like penal substitution, this phrase is often interpreted as a transactional payment for sin, raising theological and ethical concerns.
How might Torbitzky’s amipotent approach reinterpret "Jesus died for me" in a way that affirms its spiritual depth while avoiding the pitfalls of penal substitutionary atonement?
Can this phrase be understood as an expression of God’s solidarity with humanity, rather than a transactional exchange?
What might this reinterpretation mean for Christians who hold deep emotional and spiritual attachment to this phrase?
Suggestion: An open and relational interpretation of "Jesus died for me" sees his death as an act of solidarity with all who suffer, a profound expression of God’s empathy and commitment to creation. It can also see it as an icon for the fact that God absorbs both the sin and the suffering of all living beings, offering divine forgiveness as a constant and unwavering reality. The cross, in this light, becomes a symbol of God’s ultimate willingness to embrace human brokenness and to transform it through love and grace. Jesus’ death is not a transactional payment but a demonstration of the extent of divine love—of amipotence. To say "Jesus died for me" is to recognize the personal and communal significance of his sacrifice—a call to embody the love and courage he displayed, trusting in the divine lure toward wholeness, renewal, and reconciliation.
Torbitzky’s vision, enriched by these reflections, invites us to see atonement as a relational process. God’s love, expressed moment-by-moment and through the life of Jesus, calls us to align with divine possibilities and to embody justice and harmony in our lives. By reframing traditional doctrines, she opens new pathways for understanding the profound relationality at the heart of God’s work in the world.
One More Suggestion: Amipotence and Divine Receptivity
There is a dimension of relationality that Torbitzky affirms in the first sentence of her essay but seemingly distinguishes from amipotence. It is that aspect of divine love which receives the world empathically and is influenced by it. She writes:
"Understanding God as amipotent, intimately involved in every moment of existence, and suscipotent (capable of being influenced by this world) solves many problems that have plagued Christian doctrine from the beginning."
Suscipotence is not a commonly used term in theological circles, but it lies at the heart of process theology. It is explicit in what the philosopher Whitehead calls the consequent nature of God. This is the aspect of God that feels the feelings of all concrescing subjects in a compassionate and loving way - in the context of which God is affected by those feelings such that they—and the concrescing subjects to which they belong—become part of God.
If divine suscipotence—the capacity to be influenced by and receive the world empathically, such that the world becomes part of the divine life —is understood as part of amipotence, it could deepen and expand Torbitzky's notion of atonement. Atonement, in this view, would not only involve God's active, loving engagement with the world but also God's receptive, empathic, and already existing at-one-ness with creation. This reframes atonement as a twofold process: God as a participatory agent offering love and guidance, and God as a field of divine empathy, integrating the world’s joys and sufferings into the divine life.
Moreover, this perspective would offer a widened context for understanding Jesus. He would not simply point to the possibility of right relations in living within the world but also embody the incarnation of the world in God. In this way, Jesus becomes a living testament to God’s dual role—offering love as a guide and receiving the world in its fullness, including its pain and brokenness, into the divine heart.
Might this mean something to Michael? I think it would. It would mean that the pain and brokenness he suffered during his addiction, and the pain and brokenness suffered by others due to his behavior, were shared by the very God who, in his words, died for him and gives him possibilities for new life. Atonement is not only in the new possibilities, it is in God's absorption of his sin and suffering. Michael finds both in Jesus.
* Rev. Dr. Torbitzky received her doctorate from Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, CA. She earned her Master of Divinity from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and a bachelor’s degree from Truman State University. She served congregations in Pittsburgh, PA; Ontario, CA; and De Soto, MO, before taking up the Chaplaincy at Lindenwood University where she serves as faculty in the Philosophy and Religion Department. She co-edited Preaching the Uncontrolling Love of God and serves as editor of the Process and Faith Lectionary Commentary series.
Nichole Torbitzsky
in her own words
"...God works in the world in a two-fold way—both through the invitation to each of us in each moment of our lives to act for the best possible and through the concrete addition of God’s own aims with the willing collaboration of Jesus. Each avenue of influence is God’s attempt at at-one-ment with us. This second way adds to the world in the events of Jesus’ life, God’s own action for the good. More than revelation (as if that were not enough), in Jesus, God gets to act in the world for the good of the world. In Jesus, God acts to influence the world in another way toward the best possible. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus add to the truth of this world God’s consistent and persistent call to right relations among people and among humans and the rest of creation. God persists not only in offering the best possible to each moment individually but also influences the world through the actions of Jesus—adding goodness to the world that influences those who are willing—toward God’s best possible. More than a moral example—God influences the world through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. God cannot coerce, but God can influence. Jesus’s influence adds God’s best possible to the world as a second and powerful avenue of influence toward the best possible. By inserting the Divine will perfectly into the world, God reinforces the individual invitations offered to each of us in each of our moments toward the best possible."
(Amipotence: Expansion & Application, p. 482, SacraSage Press, Kindle Edition)