Another Case for Coincidence

In my last post (directly below), I mentioned that I had made a decision which qualified as irrational because I based it on a feeling. I had two ministry opportunities to choose from, and I chose the one which paid less and had less potential for growth. In fact, the other church I was looking at was offering quite a bit more money (more money than I have ever made in a job) and was in a growing community. The reason I chose the smaller community was that I just felt better about it on a personal level, so I closed the door on the other ministry and pursued it.

In the end, though, I was completely derailed. In the independent Christian Churches, we vote on hiring ministers. As it turned out, when it came time for the church to vote on me a faction in the church stirred up support against me. This faction was angry at the leadership of the church and wanted to work against them and us. I don't know why they did this to us, they didn't tell us.

Anyhow, there were several people I know who believed that the reason I chose this church was in response to God's leading. In fact, one of the elders had told us over and over again that too many things had fallen into place for us to not interpret our coming to the church to be by God's hand. Yet, after the vote he said, "I always say God is never surprised," indicating that God knew this was going to happen the whole time. If God is leading it, why didn't it work? Three quick options:

1. God led us there but knew we would be voted down. Likelihood rating: Dumb.

2. God did not lead us there, and either knew or did not know we would not be accepted. Likelihood: Possible.

3. God may have led us there and may not have. Either way, he couldn't know for certain the outcome because there were so many factors. Likelihood rating: Good. Only the position of open theism is logically consistent with God's freedom to interact and the church's and our ability to decide the outcome. Also, it is not possible to know whether he was leading or not.

In any case, the whole affair ended with heartbreak and my family and I are hurt and back at square one. I think the case is clear that speaking with certainty of God's leading is foolish. Make the wisest decisions you can and trust God, but don't attempt to know what you cannot know.

Is it a "God Thing" or Just a Coincidence?

I think it was Arsenio Hall who, years ago, coined the phrase, "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand." For some time I saw (and occasionally still see) t-shirts flaunting these words at me in my nerdy whiteness. Thankfully, for the most part, in popular discourse that silliness went the way of the Arsenio Hall show and the Dodo bird.

But in recent years the phrase has been baptized and spiritualized into a new phrase, "It's a God thing." I hear, on a fairly regular basis, people attribute all kinds of things to God's activity--all the while speaking with such certainty that you'd guess that their lives had been filled with fiery bushes and doves floating from parted clouds. I'll never forget a new student who came to the college I worked for claiming that God had shown her that this was the school he wanted her to go to. How did she know? She had done a Google search and our school came up. I didn't have the heart to explain to her that our school came up on the search because I paid a dollar per click for that search term. It wasn't God, it was clever advertising--and she realized it later when she decided she didn't really like our school and that God was leading her somewhere else!

Events of the past week have inspired three very interesting conversations with people whom I have a great deal of respect for. Two of these conversations centered around a major life-decision I have made this week which might very well have been one of the least rational and yet vitally important decisions I had ever made. Ironically, I based a lot of my decision on a feeling, a sense that I needed to or should make this particular decision. The third resulted from a really neat moment my wife and I experienced when a young man who works at a Subway restaurant we frequent offered to pay for our lunch. Interestingly, though we were willing to pay, my wife and I are currently broke and really needed the meal.

On the first event, I was choosing between two options and went an option (A) I had initially thought I would not choose. For some very rational reasons, the option I did not choose (B) was a lot better option. But I chose the one I did (A) simply because I felt better about it. I like to think that that in itself may actually have some rational aspects.

The conversations surrounding this were with a man who used to be my minister (and in many ways still is) and a friend of mine who is a minister. Both of these insisted, at least at first, that I should interpret my feelings (or that it was fair to interpret them) as God's leading. Now, I don't have a problem with the notion that God may lead us--even through feeling. What I do have trouble with is making the statement that I know with certainty that he has led me--and that is what our friendly disagreement was about. The truth is, I think my feelings are just too arbitrary and fleeting to be trustworthy enough to interpret with certainty. And that's ok--I'm not demanding certainty; I'm just stating that I have a lack of certainty.

The second event spawned a conversation between me, my wife, and three good friends of ours. After the young man bought our lunch, my wife turned and asked, "Do you think that this was a 'God event'?" In other words, did God cause this to happen in order to bless us? My initial answer was, "I don't know, it could be--it might not be." And I was thankful either way! One of my friends, though, initially insisted that it must have been God--but later admitted that it really isn't possible to know. (I hope I have accurately represented him here, I'll know if he reads this.)

My question is about whether it is possible to have certainty when discerning whether God has acted in everyday life. Before I begin to address it, I want to clarify that I am not a deist. I do not believe that God is out of touch with life in our universe. I believe he interacts and that the Bible records much of his interaction. I believe he still works in and through his people on this earth. But where I differ with many of my friends is in our ability to have certainty when interpreting events.

Even when we assume (rightly) a supernatural being (God) who routinely interacts with the universe, it does not seem possible that we should live on a planet with 6 billion conscious free agents and a universe of nature instinctively and naturally following its programming without the possibility of random coincidence. There is enough randomness in weather patterns, animal life, the feelings and actions of others, and my feelings to merit my assumption that any event (good or bad) which happens may have meaning (in that God or another free agent had a distinct purpose in it) or not (in that the event was caused by coincidence). Allow me to argue from analogy.

Deer instinctively run from danger. A friend I have enjoys hunting for deer and engages in this activity because he freely chooses to. I go to work every morning because I need the money and because I choose to pursue legal methods to acquire it. Now, let's say my friend is hunting and shoots at a deer and misses. We will understand that this frightens the deer. We expect him to follow his instincts and run away from the sound. Now, let's also say my friend was hunting about the same time I was going to work and close enough to the road that the deer ended up running directly in front of me and I hit it, totalling my 96 Oldsmobile Achieva (finally). What are the key factors leading up to this event?

First, there is nature, represented by the deer. Nature is without reason--I mean, the deer was not reasoning about his actions, he was following instinct. Granted, in a theistic paradigm that instinct is planted by God, but it is indistinct. What I mean is that if the deer were put in the exact same situation twice, his instinct would cause him to run both times--but the odds are he would run in two different directions. In fact, any number of random events may affect him. A gentle breeze may waft a scent by him which triggers his instinct to graze somewhere else in the first place, causing the event to never take place. In other words, instinct is general, i.e. deer run when startled. But the specifics of actions in nature are random. Acts of nature are really affected by three things: instinct (in the case of animals--physics and natural law in the case of inanimate objects and the weather), the actions of free agents, other acts of nature, and chance. When dealing with nature (the deer in my analogy) we must make room for random chance. With God in the paradigm we can say that he has built randomness into the system.

Second, there are the choices of free agents--in this case, me and my friend. Now, there may be all kinds of factors--from arbitrary ones to ultimately purposeful ones--but the simple truth is this: I was in my car and my friend was in the woods because we both chose to be. Nothing made us be, we simply chose it. When it comes to free agents, our decisions are basically affected by these things: nature, needs, desires (conscious and subconscious), and the actions of other free agents (which may often enough include God). We take all these into account when making decisions, but we make them consciously just the same, and we could choose not to. In this sense, we are almost like necessary beings. We are necessary to bring about the contingent actions we do. (Of course, we are not exactly like necessary beings because we are definitely caused.)

The thing is, when it comes to events in our lives, we must assume there is some randomness. If I am making free choices and my friend is making free choices, it is only a matter of odds that our paths may eventually cross without our knowledge or planning. Throw into this the fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet making free choices and the randomness of our lives emerges. It always seems silly to me to insist that when two people meet we must assume that God has brought them together. What would have happened if one had chosen something else? The answer is, they would have met someone else. Now, God may act and interact here and there outside of our knowledge, but if he is guiding everyone to meet the way they do--well that's just determinism. And I'm not into that! The odds of meeting one person out of 6 billion are nearly one in 6 billion--yet I meet new people every day! Randomness in life is truly an every day occurrence.

I am not a deist. I am not saying that God is not involved in creation. What I am doing is making a case for randomness and the impossibility of epistemological certainty when approaching "brushes with the metaphysical." It may be that God influenced or led one of us to be in a certain situation. But the problem is, we can't know it with certainty. We can guess it, and we might have good reason to. But we cannot know it. And the truth is, we cannot prove it wasn't coincidence when coincidence must be understood as an element in the system God created.

Why did our friend at Subway buy us lunch? Perhaps God saw our need and gently influenced him to do so by planting the idea in his mind. Perhaps God inhabited his body outside of our friend's free will and caused him to buy us lunch. Perhaps our friend simply responded to us out of love. Perhaps he felt sorry for us. Perhaps someone tipped him off that we were broke and needed help. Maybe he was moved by something we said or did which revealed the work of God in our lives and he freely responded to that. But my answer to the question, "Did God do this for us?" must be, "I don't really know." I like to think he did, and I believe he is taking care of us. Truthfully, I really believe God blessed us with lunch through our friend. But we're talking knowledge here, not belief. Belief requires intellectual agreement, knowledge requires proof (see my appendix at the end of this article). Though I believe it, I cannot rule out the fact that our friend acted freely and could have chosen not to. I cannot rule out the randomness of our encounter--he could very easily have chosen not to come in to work that day. His boss could have scheduled him for a different time. I could have been hit by a meteor on the way in the door but I wasn't, therefore, nature was favorable to the event (I had to work nature in somehow). Many things had to happen in just the right way for this event to occur--which may be evidence for God's activity and it may not. The truth is, if the event hadn't occurred, whatever event did occur would also have needed many events to happen in just the right way in order to occur. And something is going to happen one way or another.

So what, then? Do we give up? I think we can make a few assumptions. First, God does not have every event planned for our lives (see appendix 2). He has listed general instructions (what type of person I should marry, what types of activities are wrong) and has given us a basic purpose (what kind of life I should lead) in his revealed word, the Bible. The specifics (i.e. who I'll marry, where I'll work) he leaves up to us. Second, God does act in the universe. Third, humans are free agents who freely choose to do whatever they want to do, even if those choices are influenced by needs, desires, etc. Fourth, events in nature are determined by instinct, physics, chance, and sometimes the actions of free agents (i.e. global warming and the Genesis flood).

Mix these ingredients together and what do we have? An Open System! (Isn't it predictable that this is my conclusion?) I think God has created a system in which anything can happen, anything is possible. I think God is working within that system to accomplish his purposes. But we are really blind to him. We cannot see clearly what he is doing and why. We cannot always tell the difference between chance, our feelings, and the actions and will of God. Sometimes we are confused. For this reason, we must do the best we can do to follow him and trust that God will take care of the things we cannot see. And we mustn't assume too much that we cannot know. I think there is a danger in assuming that God must have provided my free lunch. It begs the question, why doesn't he do the same for my brothers in Christ who are starving somewhere else? I think the only right answer to questions like, "Is this a God thing?" and "Did God lead me here?" is, "I don't know for certain--it's possible. But I'm going to follow him whether he did or didn't--though he slays me yet will I serve him!"

Is it a God thing? Only God knows.

Appendix: My definition of knowledge is the enlightenment definition. Knowledge is justifed true belief. Of course, by this definition, knowledge of something is only possible if that something can be proven--until it is proven it is only belief. Hence, my wrestling with the question, "Do you know God exists?" I think the answer is, "I have faith that he does, but not knowledge." Yet I acknowledge that there is a biblical definition of knowledge which is quite different. But I have difficulty wrapping my brain around it. I have Michael Polanyi's book, Personal Knowledge, but I have not started it yet. It is my hope that this book will help me make my epistemological shift.

Appendix 2: Does God ever have a specific in mind? Even though I stated that I do not think God has all the details of our lives mapped out, I think it is entirely possible that he knows of occasional specific situations in which he may want one of us to act or live or which he feels are best for us. It is my belief that he may act through "open and closed doors" or through the gentle nudge of a "feeling of leading." But we must be very careful with this. We can't always see all the doors well enough to say we know all the doors were open or closed and we can't always adequately interpret our feelings. For this reason, I think we are almost better off to assume he is not leading us--to just do the best we can and trust he'll fill in our gaps.

Jonah: Fact or Fiction? (And Does it Really Matter?)

Is the Bible true? I am convinced that every word of it is (excuse the idiom) “gospel truth.” But what does that mean? Is the truthfulness of the Bible dependent on the factuality of all of its stories?

My history and training screams, “YES!” All of the stories of the Bible must be factual, they must have happened just as the Bible relates them. Yet, in recent years, I have been thinking rather differently on some items. In fact, those closest to me know that I’ve abandoned a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account—at least as far as the “6 day” timeline is concerned. Now the struggle is how far to take my newfound “deconstruction.”

Recently I heard a very interesting sermon by Dave White at Pantano Christian Church in Tuscon, AZ. In a series called “Honest Questions: Engaging Faith,” he recently addressed the “factuality” of three stories of the Old Testament in a sermon called “Is the Bible True?”

I think White has some valid points to make, even if I’m not sure how much I agree with them. In case you haven’t yet followed the link and listened to the sermon, let me give you a short rundown: When he was younger, White was interested in defending the Bible from modern attacks and had come to believe that proving the authenticity and historicity of all Biblical stories was of vital importance. Apologetics had become a priority for him. But as he continued to study, he began to struggle with some Biblical stories, specifically the Genesis creation account, Jonah, and Job. In the message he deconstructs a modern understanding of these stories as historical accounts and assumes that these might have been fictional stories used to make a valid, and truthful point. He still believes in Jesus as the Son of God who died on a cross and literally rose from the dead. He still believes in miracles and in the truth of the Bible. But, he says, Jesus had no problem using fictional stories to make a point—we call these stories “parables.” Remembering this and understanding the mindset of the Hebrew people (who didn’t intend to record moment-by-moment scientific accounts of these events—such as the creation account), what is wrong with questioning whether some stories are meant to be understood as fictional accounts which relate fundamental truths? Don’t we tell stories like this all the time?

In the message, White doesn’t answer the question I was begging him to address: “Where do you draw the line?” However, I don’t think it is difficult to draw the line. It is pretty clear that the Gospels are intended to be thought of historically. They match up with extra-biblically documented historical events and are related in a narrative sense. The epistles are personal letters which assume the historicity of the gospel events (admittedly, they also seem to assume the historicity of many Old Testament events). In the Old Testament, the books of history have the ring of historicity to them and are well documented. But Jonah, Job, and (I believe) the creation account contain elements which are, at the very least, historically questionable—even if they relate profound truths. They don't seem to have the same contextual support.

I resonate with White’s sermon because I have some questions about the “factual nature” of some Old Testament stories. I’m not really sure any more whether every story in the Old Testament was meant to be understood as fact. I’m not saying I’ve entirely accepted that these three stories are fictional. The truth is, I’m just not sure. In fact, I’m not sure I’ll ever be sure. For that reason, I’m content to wait until I can talk to the writers in person to find out. But I do think it is impossible to prove them to be factual in a modern sense. That having been said, I think there is a valid question which is raised by this discussion.

For many years I, like White, was sure that my studies would enable me to prove with certainty that the Bible is true, it’s stories are all factual, and that its historicity lends it modern credibility. I really believed that if I could just show people that, they’d just have to come around to belief in Jesus Christ! But is it so? What could I do that Josh McDowell hasn’t already done? The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict alone is 760 pages long! The "proof" is there. Why isn’t everyone scrambling for the nearest baptistery? Is there a point to proving the historicity and factuality of the Bible?

And it amazes me how much of my undergrad education was spent proving that the Bible is factual and trustworthy because it holds up under scrutiny and modern definitions of historical accuracy. My education always attempted to explain away apparent difficulties and preserve the Bible’s integrity. But is this what we should be doing?

What if, instead of wasting so many years trying to prove that the bible is factual, what I really needed to do is simply rely on its truthfulness and convey its message to people? It’s really the message of scripture that resonates with people, not the idea that the Bible is a mass of interesting documented historical facts. The Bible isn't primarily a history book, even though it contains history. Will our attempts to prove that it is historically accurate really draw people to the message?

My good friend Paul Axton once said, “We don’t read the Bible to learn a bunch of interesting facts, we read it to find life-transforming truths.” And he often adds that when we try to prove the authority of the Bible, we often end up undermining it. Our attempts to prove scripture according to modern standards are always well-intended, but usually end up elevating our modern standards. Making scripture meet my standards of truthfulness means that “my standards of truthfulness” are the real measure. Perhaps we do not need the Bible’s historicity proven. Perhaps we should merely assume its authority and not attempt to lend it our credibility. Does God really need my authority?

To my mind, there is no more life-transforming message than that of Jesus Christ. And it no longer seems to me that my goal is to prove that it happened, but to show that it is happening. Jesus Christ does change lives and he does give hope. And try as we might, we cannot erase the element of blindness from our faith!

Counter-culturalism and politics

For years I assumed that being a Christian meant being a strict political conservative. All time spent in my car was devoted to listening to Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and O'Reilly (I still kind of like O'Reilly). But recently I've come to some conclusions:

First of all, Jesus' approach wasn't political. He really didn't come to this earth to stop homosexual marriage in America or even abortion. He didn't lobby to promote religious views in the public forum and didn't desire to illegalize immorality. He came to seek and save the lost through personal interaction and through his own substitutionary work on the cross and in raising from the dead. Therefore, when Christians focus on keeping Christianity legal and illegalizing gay marriage and illegalizing abortion over and above our call to evangelize the lost, aren't we effectually missing the boat?

Say we succeed in illegalizing gay marriage in America. Then what? Are we any closer to reaching the lost? Say we illegalize abortion (which we won't). What have we won? The truth is, Jesus didn't die to stop gay marriage. He died to save people from their sin. So the answer to "Do you think gays should be allowed to get married," from the Christian perspective is, "I don't think gays should be gay." Homosexuality is immorality--sin. But we're not here to make sin illegal--we're here to save people from it!

The church has to work from the ground up. Christianity is a grass-roots, counter-cultural phenomenon. The evangelical attack that attempts to change culture from the top down reflects poor thinking. I think it is motivated by fear of persecution. But the Bible promises that we'll face persecution--we've got to accept that and work to change society individually through our relationships with people in the world. Evangelism is Christianity's tool, not Congress! We've got to start with the people, not the government. That's how it works.

Second, I've voted pro-life, anti-gay marriage since I was 18 (17 years ago) and I have yet to see the people I've helped to elect who promised to do something about these issues actually do anything about these issues. Therefore, I don't have any confidence that politicians with "Christian morals" have any more burden for these issues than those without. Of course, I'll still vote my values. But I'm not going to worry myself sick about it any more! I've even come to the conclusion that there are Christians who don't vote like I do! And that's ok.

I still haven't read Greg Boyd's new book, The Myth of a Christian Nation. One of my friends needs to just buy it for me so I can have it!