spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

humble servant. This humility of Christ was applied to the divine attribute of omnipotence, so
that God’s weakness was understood as God’s power.
The revised concept of divine power suggested that power could be seen as a relational category
without aspects of dominance and self-sufficiency. As a result, attention was now directed to the
relational dimension of God’s power: that is, God’s power is found in his ability to save creation
(see for example Janzen 1975:379-406; Berkhof 1986:140-146; Ford 1987:233-238; Case-
Winters 1990:201-232). Instead of holding on to an identification of divine power as selfsufficient,
there was increasing interest for the conceptualization of divine power as shared
power, as “the capacity both to influence and to be influenced by others” (Loomers 1976:17).
The novum of this understanding of divine power as relational power is not so much that the
scope of divine power is at stake, but rather that new dimensions of God’s omnipotence are
articulated. These newly addressed dimensions also have theological-anthropological
implications. The process-feminist synthesis proposal by Case-Winters (1990) is a good
example: by understanding divine power as shared, persuasive power (instead of all-determining
causal power), there is a new opportunity to reflect on God’s omnipotence as an empowering and
life-giving force. The implication is that God’s power does not eliminate the relative
independence and power of the human being, but, instead, uses them for the glory of God and
the well-being of creation (Case-Winters 1990:231).
Another attempt to move beyond the classic definition of power as domination is offered by Kyle
Pasewark (1993). A major contribution to the redefinition of power can be found in his effort to
retrieve the theme of power from political theory. Pasewark criticizes the tendency to reflect on
power in mere political categories since this reduces power to dominance (‘power over’).
Instead, he emphasizes (based on Foucault, and in the footsteps of Luther and Tillich) the
ubiquity of power. Power is present in all dimensions of life, and is to be defined as ‘the
communication of efficacy’ (1993:197ff). That is, the communication of life that has its origins
in God. Pasewark’s proposal to understand power as the communication of life is rooted in
Luther’s understanding that the power of God is always used for us. In this light, Pasewark
redefines power as dominance (‘power over’) to power that exist only in relationships (‘power
to’). 61
61. Despite Pasewark’s firm rejection of power in terms of political terms, one could conclude that the redefinition
of power as the communication of efficacy could still be understood as a form of dominant power (cf. Kearsley
2008:37).
262