Clergy member argues divine love operates through invitation rather than control

A clergy member in Brainerd is proposing a new framework for understanding divine power, arguing that God does not intervene in tragedies because the nature of love prevents coercion. The perspective, shared in a recent reflection, suggests that God abides in human suffering rather than eliminating it through force.

The writer recalls a specific moment in the fall of 1957 when their father, a Merchant Marine First Mate, collapsed on a screened porch after suffering a grand mal seizure. At nine years old, the writer prayed for their father's life. Six years later, the father died. That experience led to a lifelong question: if God is all-powerful, why does tragedy persist?

Traditional answers often cite mysterious divine plans or hidden reasons for suffering. The writer argues these explanations imply that God wills pain for a purpose. Instead, the reflection posits that God may not intervene because divine power is not the power to command or compel. God cannot unilaterally determine human choices or suspend natural laws without violating the essence of love.

The argument draws on the theology of Thomas Jay Oord, who describes God's love as inherently un-controlling. Because love does not coerce, God cannot force people to act compassionately or guarantee the healing of every illness. Divine presence involves invitation rather than domination. God enters the world through vulnerability, as seen in the life of Jesus, who washed feet and rode a donkey into Jerusalem.

This view reframes the role of prayer. The writer suggests prayer is not a mechanism for controlling God's actions. Instead, it opens individuals to a divine presence that is already working within their lives. When people pray for peace, they become attentive to practicing peace. When they pray for justice, they discover a call to become instruments of that justice.

The reflection emphasizes that God acts through what the writer terms the sacred nudge. This includes compassion interrupting indifference, questions challenging assumptions, and hope emerging from despair. God nudges people toward generosity, reconciliation, and justice, even when those choices feel difficult or risky. Humans retain the ability to resist these nudges, keeping the future open.

Hope is defined not as certainty that all outcomes will be favorable, but as trust that possibilities for love remain even in difficult circumstances. These possibilities often appear in small ways, such as holding a hand in a hospital room or welcoming those excluded by others. The writer concludes that the question is no longer why God does not do something, but what God is inviting people to do together.

The reflection invites readers to view divine power through the lens of relationship and compassion rather than domination. It positions God as a companion who loves and accompanies, offering strength through community and personal responsibility rather than miraculous intervention.