The concept of
divine coercive power, both in its pure and modified forms, has led to grave difficulties.
In fact, it seems fair to say that the most common criticism process theists level against the God of classical free will theism is the claim that if such a being really existed and were wholly good, we should expect to see displays of
divine coercive power more often.
Not exact matches
Another example was alluded to before: the fact that our world seems to have taken shape over a period of many billions of years, rather than having been created in essentially its present form a few thousand years ago, provides evidence against the view that the creation of our world required omnipotent
coercive power; this fact is much more consistent with the view that the
divine creative
power is solely the
power of persuasion, the kind of
power we can experience working in our own lives.
On the other hand, if the answer is yes — that is, if
divine persuasion alone does not maximize human freedom to the extent that such persuasion and divinely approved human coercion does — then it is difficult to see why the process God would not use
coercive power if this were an option.
While these formulations of
divine persuasive
power and relational
power are not without problems for some feminists, they do represent alternatives to
coercive, hierarchical
power patterns and are suggestive of feminist reformulations of
power in the context of mutuality.
If God would use
coercive power if it were available, then there are, in principle, times when
divine persuasion plus
divine coercion would bring about more worthwhile results.
It would seem, rather, that we, mirroring the
divine ranking of values, should also refrain from all
coercive uses of
power.
Madden and Hare implicitly construe
divine power to be
coercive, limited by the exercise of other
coercive powers in the world.
Pure
coercive power transforms creatio ex nihilo into creatio ex deo, with the world possessing no more independent actuality than an idea in the
divine mind would have.
Ford sympathizes, noting that the Old Testament's «dominant experience of
divine power seems to emphasize
coercive elements, with the symbols for
power drawn heavily from the military and political spheres» (LG 15).
Given these two philosophical perspectives, the
coercive and the persuasive, the biblical witness to
divine power seems inconsistent.
For a vigorous defense of the claim that a process model of
divine power includes both coercive and persuasive elements, see J. Gerald Janzen, «Modes of Power and the Divine Relativity,» Encounter,» 36/4 (Autumn 1975), 379 -
power includes both
coercive and persuasive elements, see J. Gerald Janzen, «Modes of
Power and the Divine Relativity,» Encounter,» 36/4 (Autumn 1975), 379 -
Power and the
Divine Relativity,» Encounter,» 36/4 (Autumn 1975), 379 - 406.
God's
power is persuasive rather than
coercive.14 What we earlier referred to as
divine «helplessness» may now be understood in part at least as non-coerciveness.
As such,
divine power has been imagined as the
coercive, overwhelming, forceful impact of one (active) entity on the (passive) receptivity of a second.
We detract in no way from the sublimity of
divine power when we label it persuasive rather than
coercive.