God as Infinite Receptivity Dan Dombrowski’s Friendly Amendment to Thomas Oord’s Theology
Toward a More Complete Relationality
In his essay "Perfect Passivity" in Amipotence Vol. 2 (2025), the American philosopher Dan Dombrowski offers a friendly amendment to Thomas Oord's theology, He argues that Oord's approach to divine love, while insightful, is incomplete. It lacks balance, limiting its ability to fully convey the fullness of divine love or Amipotence. The imbalance lies in the fact that, while Oord recognizes God's receptive and empathic side, he underemphasizes it in comparison to God’s non-coercive “luring” of the world. In reading Oord, and in reading many other open and relational thinkers, you get the impression that what is truly important about God is how God acts in the world, rather than how the world acts in God. This imbalance neglects the vital relational dynamics of empathy, vulnerability, and responsiveness, which are essential aspects of love. As Dombrowski writes: “Receiving influence from others is a type of ‘doing’ that is just as important as exercising influence on them.”
This imbalance carries significant implications. First, as Dombrowski makes clear, it overlooks a fundamental dimension of love: the relational act of listening, receiving, and allowing oneself to be shaped by the other. It neglects the listening side of love. Second, I here add, it risks presenting God primarily as an initiator in the divine-world relationship, subtly reinforcing hierarchical models of power. Even when framed in non-coercive terms, an overemphasis on how God acts in the world, and an under-emphasis on how the world acts in God, reflects a modern Western conception of agency, where the initiator operates autonomously, acting from a position of prior authority rather than mutual interdependence. Related to this is the idea, also modern and western, that agents are akin to grammatical subjects of a sentence, to which predicates can be added or subtracted, while the subject remains the same.
Such a portrayal runs counter to the core principle of open and relational theology, which are that God’s nature is intrinsically relational. The predicate of relationalal love, as Oord himself emphasizes, is essential to the subject of God, apart from which God would not be God. If relationality is foundational to God’s being, then divine agency must also encompass receptivity. It must involve listening to the world, being shaped by the unfolding of creation, empathically taking in the joys, sufferings, and creative acts of creatures. In this dynamic interplay, God does not merely call but also listens; God does not only lure but also receives and is affected by the world’s ongoing story. By giving equal weight to divine receptivity, open and relational theology can articulate a more holistic vision of love—divine and human.
Further Discussion
As noted above, in "Perfect Passivity" in Amipotence Vol. 2 (2025), Dan Dombrowski offers a friendly amendment to Thomas Oord's theological framework by examining its treatment of divine activity and passivity within a dipolar theistic perspective. Dipolar theism holds that God possesses two complementary aspects: an active aspect that influences the world and a receptive aspect that receives influences and is affected by the world. As Dombrowski puts it, “receiving influence from others is a type of ‘doing’ that is just as important as exercising influence on them.”
In Dombrowski's view, Oord underemphasizes the importance of divine reception, even as he is "generally" a dipolar theist. Dombrowski writes:
"I say that Oord is generally a dipolar theist because he does claim that God is affected by the creatures, is receptive to creaturely activities, and is (in Whiteheadian fashion) the fellow-sufferer who understands. But for every reference to divine passivity in Oord’s book there are many more references to divine activity."
Dombrowski identifies an imbalance: while Oord acknowledges divine passivity—God’s receptivity to creation and empathetic participation in the world—he places far greater emphasis on divine activity, highlighting God’s capacity to influence, guide, and act within the world. In response, Dombrowski makes a plea for greater parity between these two aspects of God:
"My only wish is that for every time when Oord understandably says that God’s doing is analogous to ours, he would also remind us that God’s receiving is analogous to ours, but to the nth degree, of course. Or again, for every time when Oord legitimately mentions God’s powerful activity, it would be helpful to remind us of God’s powerful passivity.... I suppose I am putting in a plea for something closer to polar equality in dipolar theism. Oord’s amipotence requires this, I think."
At one point, Dombrowski compares the receptive side of God to an act of listening, albeit multiplied to the nth degree. God is, as it were, the Deep Listening (my phrase, not Dombrowski's) in which the universe lives and moves and has its being.
Why This Matters
The issue is not simply one of consistency. An overemphasis on God influencing the world through fresh possibilities, at the expense of highlighting the receptive side of love, risks portraying God as primarily an initiator in the relationship, subtly reinforcing a one-sided dynamic that mirrors hierarchical models of power. By neglecting to equally emphasize God’s capacity to receive influence, theologians perpetuate a legacy of imbalance and miss an opportunity to fully articulate the mutuality and vulnerability that are central to relationality.
Highlighting divine receiving, by contrast, corrects this imbalance by presenting God as not only a source of action but also as deeply responsive to the self-creative agency of creatures. What makes God powerful—more powerful than any creature—is God’s openness to the experiences of creation: its joys, sorrows, hopes, and tragedies. In doing so, divine receiving becomes an act of love, signaling God’s willingness to be shaped by each and every entity in the universe, sharing in creation’s suffering and beauty, and evolving in response to it. This vision resonates with the central tenets of open and relational theology, emphasizing interdependence and shared agency between God and the world.
Co-Creativity
Emphasizing divine receiving transforms how we understand the process of creation. Rather than a top-down act of divine will, creation becomes a collaborative process of co-creation. God’s guidance and influence function as invitations rather than commands, allowing creation the freedom to respond creatively. Simultaneously, creation’s actions and experiences contribute to God’s own experience and evolution. This mutuality paints a picture of a cosmos not only guided by divine love but also shaped by the collective experiences of all beings.
Contemplative Prayer
This perspective also connects divine receptivity to the contemplative dimension of religious life. Just as God listens deeply and receptively to the world, we are invited to partake of this listening side of God through contemplative, non-adressive prayer. In moments of silent prayer, where words fall away, we mirror God’s receptive nature, opening ourselves to the fullness of existence without the need to act or control. This practice fosters a kind of mutual resonance between divine and human receptivity, deepening our connection with the sacred presence that pervades and feels all things.
Contemplative prayer, in this sense, becomes an embodied participation in the divine act of listening. It aligns us with God’s empathetic and vulnerable love, enabling us to experience relationality at its most profound level. In these quiet moments, we allow ourselves to be shaped by the world’s joys and sorrows, much as God is shaped by creation. This contemplative posture reminds us that receptivity is not passivity but a vital dimension of relational existence, where transformation and mutuality arise.
A Fuller Vision of Relationality
Dombrowski’s call for equal emphasis on divine receiving invites a richer and more balanced understanding of God’s relationality. It challenges the open and relational tradition to fully explore the vulnerability, empathy, and mutuality inherent in divine love. By highlighting God’s receptivity, theologians can move beyond hierarchical or one-sided models of divine action, embracing a vision of God as a co-creator and companion who is shaped by the unfolding story of the cosmos.
This expanded view not only deepens the theological understanding of divine love but also inspires a greater sense of responsibility and interconnectedness within creation. As humans, we are called to engage in this relational dynamic, knowing that our lives contribute to the divine experience. In emphasizing both divine giving and receiving, we affirm a God who is intimately present in the joys and sorrows of the world—a God who listens, feels, and grows with creation in the ongoing adventure of life.