When we try to understand God by piling on abstract adjectives like “ almighty”, “ omnipotent” or “all-knowing,” we often do more harm than good. These words can feel like intellectual gymnastics, contorting language just to make God’s nature fit neatly into human categories. The result? Sophistry—a clever-sounding explanation that ultimately avoids wrestling with the real mystery of God and suffering.
If God truly is “all-powerful” in the usual sense, why does pain and injustice persist? Attempts to answer this question by redefining “power” or “might” often sound like evasions rather than honest engagement. They tend to gloss over the very real experience of human brokenness.
Instead, understanding God should start with Jesus—who reveals God not as a distant, controlling force, but as a loving Father who enters into weakness, suffering, and vulnerability. Trying to return to abstract, creedal terms without this grounding risks missing the whole point of Christian faith.
Labels like “almighty” and “omnipotent” mean little if they don’t connect to the God who loves sacrificially and suffers alongside creation. Using these terms as a first step can distract us, pulling attention away from the lived reality of God’s love revealed in Christ.
In short, trying to explain God by these heavy, impersonal words often sounds like dressing up an uncomfortable mystery in fancy clothes—when what we really need is to meet God in the concrete, messy reality of Jesus.
Well, this is a series on the Apostles' Creed, so I'm starting with the words of the creed, and then working from there to help people understand what they mean. And Jesus is very much my starting point for helping people understand the words of the Creed. See my series on Healing Prayer for more of my thinking on these kinds of things. This is just a short article in a series on the Apostles' Creed. ;)
I appreciate what you’re doing with the series and that you’re grounding your reflections in the language of the Apostles’ Creed. My concern is how much work it takes to make some of its language, like “almighty,” line up with how God is revealed in Jesus.
I’m not saying we should discard the Creed. I’m saying: let the words mean what they actually say. If “almighty” brings up images of raw power, control, and invulnerability—then that’s the theological weight the word is carrying,. And if that image clashes with the God we meet in Christ—who suffers, serves, and loves without dominating—then maybe the issue is that the creed is a poor medium through which to catechize which I guess is the purpose of the series.
That doesn’t mean rejecting the tradition—it means being honest about where it may no longer serve its purpose.
Thank you for this, Ben. I'm looking forward to diving into the two books you recommended on the creeds!
When we try to understand God by piling on abstract adjectives like “ almighty”, “ omnipotent” or “all-knowing,” we often do more harm than good. These words can feel like intellectual gymnastics, contorting language just to make God’s nature fit neatly into human categories. The result? Sophistry—a clever-sounding explanation that ultimately avoids wrestling with the real mystery of God and suffering.
If God truly is “all-powerful” in the usual sense, why does pain and injustice persist? Attempts to answer this question by redefining “power” or “might” often sound like evasions rather than honest engagement. They tend to gloss over the very real experience of human brokenness.
Instead, understanding God should start with Jesus—who reveals God not as a distant, controlling force, but as a loving Father who enters into weakness, suffering, and vulnerability. Trying to return to abstract, creedal terms without this grounding risks missing the whole point of Christian faith.
Labels like “almighty” and “omnipotent” mean little if they don’t connect to the God who loves sacrificially and suffers alongside creation. Using these terms as a first step can distract us, pulling attention away from the lived reality of God’s love revealed in Christ.
In short, trying to explain God by these heavy, impersonal words often sounds like dressing up an uncomfortable mystery in fancy clothes—when what we really need is to meet God in the concrete, messy reality of Jesus.
Well, this is a series on the Apostles' Creed, so I'm starting with the words of the creed, and then working from there to help people understand what they mean. And Jesus is very much my starting point for helping people understand the words of the Creed. See my series on Healing Prayer for more of my thinking on these kinds of things. This is just a short article in a series on the Apostles' Creed. ;)
I appreciate what you’re doing with the series and that you’re grounding your reflections in the language of the Apostles’ Creed. My concern is how much work it takes to make some of its language, like “almighty,” line up with how God is revealed in Jesus.
I’m not saying we should discard the Creed. I’m saying: let the words mean what they actually say. If “almighty” brings up images of raw power, control, and invulnerability—then that’s the theological weight the word is carrying,. And if that image clashes with the God we meet in Christ—who suffers, serves, and loves without dominating—then maybe the issue is that the creed is a poor medium through which to catechize which I guess is the purpose of the series.
That doesn’t mean rejecting the tradition—it means being honest about where it may no longer serve its purpose.