Boyd, Prayer, and God's Will

I was visiting with a dear, sweet lady from our church who has been dealing with cancer for many years. Recently she underwent a very drastic surgical procedure in an attempt to remove the cancer from her body. She has been recovering for weeks but is still in a nursing home. The surgery caused a minor stroke, she lost use of one of her arms, a leg, as well as a portion of her personal dignity. For what it's worth, I think she's been wishing that she had not done the surgery at all.

On one of my first visits to her since she was transferred form the hospital to a nurshing home, she looked up at me and asked me, "Jason, you don't think God did this to me, do you?" Wow, what an interesting question. How to answer?

Well, I have to admit the answer wasn't difficult for me at all. I have a lot of thoughts on this, and a very strong opinion. At the nursing home that day was not the place for a passionate theological treatise, I knew my answer needed to provide comfort and help. So I told her, "No, God did not do this to you. But the wonderful thing is, he is experiencing it with you and loving you. He knows what it is to endure pain and indignity." Of course, God did NOT do this to her. To my mind, the answer is simply that God has created an open system in which free choice can happen, has happened, and has introduced evil and suffering into the system. From there, bad things happen because people choose to do them and because nature responds according to its programming, which allows for random evils like sickness and tragedy. There are coincidences! God is working within that system, but not in any way which overrides human free will. God does not have a specific reason for allowing suffering or causing it--instead he accepts it as a part of the situation and works within those events to bring good out of them. The ultimate answer, of course, is that he deals with the situation of our pain and suffering by enduring it--on the cross.

Let me try another explanation. In a system in which people are free to make decisions, if person a and person b both desire to be in one place at one time, without knowing the other is there or wants that, there will likely be an accident. This does not mean that God decided for there to be an accident, but that those people, coincidentally, decided to be there. Think about it. In a system in which there are billions of free agents and a natural system in which natural things operate according to programming among those free agents, why must accidents and problems be attributed to divine will? Existence really a chaos of sorts. So is it surprising that things happen which are good and things happen which are bad?

This makes it impossible to know with certainty that God has acted in a certain situation. I heard a guy on a Christian radio station the other day telling a story about a man who sold his home--shortly before the land was taken over by the government. The preacher insisted that this was a proof of God's involvement, that God's plan was working out for this person. Perhaps! I have to admit it could be the case. But must it necessarily be? Not to mention the fact that in saving this man from the problem, God subjected another to it. What about the fact that in a system in which sometimes people buy, sometimes people sell, and sometimes the government takes over land--in a large system in which these things happen all over the place on a daily basis--is it really so hard to believe that it might be a coincidence that the man sold his house shortly before the government took it over (and another bought his house shortly before the government took it over--the same house)? There simply MUST be a capacity for coincidence in an open system. There CANNOT be freedom if there are NO ACCIDENTS.

But I have to admit also that I don't think a lot of the people I know would have been able to answer it the same way I did. Good Arminian theologians, raised and educated in Arminian tradition have prescribed to the position which says that everything which happens has a specific pre-ordained purpose in the plan of God. They say that either God "allowed" it for a purpose or "caused" it for a purpose. Both of these, I think, are biblically and intellectually unintelligible. How do you tell someone that God's plan and intention was for them to suffer in this way to bring about some good? Why do you tell them that? What is the purpose?

I know I mention him a lot, but it always amazes me how often I listen to or read Greg Boyd and discover our similarity on an issue. He has been preaching on the Lord's Prayer in Luke and has done three sermons (as of the writing of this post only two have been podcasted, but I assume the third will be available this week). They are available on the Woodland Hills Church podcast (follow the link on the left under Theo's Podcast Picks). The first message, "The Insane Importance of Prayer," introduces the ideas. But it is "Scorpions, Eggs, and Prayer" which really begins to get at the heart of this issue.

He asks, "Why is it that Jesus promises that if someone asks for an egg the Father will not give them a scorpion but that sometimes it looks exactly that way?" Sometimes bad things happen to us even when we pray that they do not. He examines two classic answers in that message. The first is that it was God's will for us to endure the problem. The second is that our faith was insufficient. In Greg's words: "The first is God's fault, the second is our fault." Both of these answers he finds insufficient.

Boyd's answer is that both of these answers are too simplistic. They attribute all causes of effects to only one variable. In the first case, that everything which happens is the will of God, the only variable is God's will. This means that there is no freedom and the system is closed. This is Calvinism at its worst--but it is still the answer of choice even for many of my Arminian friends. In the second case, that everything which happens is dependent on my faith, the only variable is FAITH.

Here is a great example he uses. Say that a parent prays that his child, who has grown to adulthood and left the faith, is saved--or comes to the Lord. Say, then, that the child never does. He rejects God his entire life and finally dies in a cruel accident. The parent had prayed for years, but now there is tragedy. Why did God say "No?"

The one influenced by Calvinism will say that either we can't understand it, or there are things we don't see, or we must simply trust God. His ways are not our ways. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

But is this the only answer? Why not answer that in an open system it isn't only God's will that decides what is to pass? God has created a system in which the child could always choose which way he could go. As much as God may work on an issue, it may be that his will was thwarted by the free decision of the child.

The bottom line is that in an open system, God's will is not always the one that comes to pass. It can't always be. Sometimes what God wants to happen DOESN'T happen! People often say to me, "If God wants it to happen, it will happen." Well, sin happens, did God want that to happen? If someone sins, does that mean God wanted it to happen? If someone rapes someone, does God want THAT to happen? I think not. God's will is not the only variable. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of events makes knowledge of why any event happens absolutely impossible.

Now, I know this smacks of a theodicy. And maybe it is. And, in strictly theological circles I would affirm that theodicy-making is not always an appropriate endeavor. Yet, on a practical level, when Christians endure these things, the questions cannot be avoided. There must be an answer which arises from scripture to comfort people in the face of their suffering. To my mind it is the suffering Savior. To many Christians, it is the ultimate plan of God. To others, it is the absence or presence of faith among the believers. If this post is a theodicy, so be it. But I think it is the only TRUE theodicy. The other answers are speculation and defense. I am appealing to the cross, not to a speculation about "God's ultimate plan!"

I highly, HIGHLY, recommend Boyd's recent sermons on prayer. Go download them today.

Open Theism as the Antidote to Theistic Fatalism and Prosperity Theology

Well, I haven’t written much for a while! We’ve been so busy adjusting to the Georgia lifestyle, that I’ve found it difficult to think about one thing long enough to put together a blog entry. That being said, I’ve finally developed a few thoughts on—you guessed it—Open Theism. My favorite topic and hobby horse.

Unquestionably, no other theological concept has been as profoundly influencing as my move to the Openness of God position. It has shaped nearly every idea I have of God, Christ, and humans. In fact, it is so fundamental to my thinking now, that I’m really thinking of it less and working out more of the implications of that theology in my own practice and preaching.

As a preacher, I haven’t done any sermons directly on God’s openness. Really, I doubt I will for this reason: most people pretty much already operate on the assumption that the future is open and that God is responding to us actively, not as if he has eternally known all events. They may pay lip service to eternal foreknowledge, but few are really operating under that system.

I do, however, hear it from pulpits. One of my favorite preachers, Alistair Begg, recently did a few lesson sets on his podcast called “The Benefits of Expository Preaching” and “The Basics of Expository Preaching.” (See “Theo’s Podcasts” to the left to download.) Both sets were excellent and well balanced. However, within these he reemphasized his own Calvinist background under the assumption that, in expository preaching, you don’t begin with Calvinism, but if you teach the Bible, you’ll get around to it. One experiences moments of despair when one realizes just how many people do not hold to one’s own position. But I don’t have to convince anyone do I? Why pressure myself to do so? That having been said, I find that few methods for developing a blog entry are as prolific as listening to someone say something and working out a response to it. Recently, there are two events inspiring this entry: one is a statement made by a local minister, the other an investigation of a few area ministers.

The Statement:

A theological statement made recently has led me to dub a new term: Theological Fatalism. I have coined this term to describe the position, whether Calvinistic or Arminian (what’s the difference any more?), that God’s foreknowledge of our suffering somehow works into his master plan for the human race. The statement I heard was something like this:

“So and so is dealing with cancer again. We don’t know why God is allowing her to experience this. But we can bet that God has been preparing her throughout her entire life to deal with this tragedy.”

Personally, one of the weaknesses of the Calvinistic and Arminian views of foreknowledge is that it requires Christians to develop theodicies explaining why God would allow them or why we shouldn’t ask why. In this case, the classic “soul making theodicy” is appealed to: God knew it would happen, decided to use it for a certain purpose, and went about preparing this person (presumably through other hardship or trials?) to deal with it. I think it begs a few questions:

QUESTION: If God knows the event is going to happen, how much sense does it make to say that God is “preparing” someone to experience it, or planning to “use” it?

EXPLANATION: If God has KNOWLEDGE of an upcoming event, then we must understand that he KNOWS the event is going to happen. It seems ridiculous and repetitive, but it is necessary to point this out. What Arminian Christians seem to misunderstand is that foreknowledge (the knowledge that something will happen) NECESSITATES that no other event CAN happen. In other words—if God eternally knows an event will happen, NO OTHER EVENT CAN HAPPEN. If another event happens, then God didn’t really know it would happen. He can’t change that event, because the event he knew would happen has to happen. So the idea that God “knows” an event will happen and works around it within time is really nonsense. Here is why: for any one event which happens, there are millions—perhaps billions—of events within time which lead up to that event and which are necessary for that event to happen. The holocaust, for example, did not happen suddenly and with no warning! A very specific set of events happened which led to the Nazis taking power and Hitler’s regime.

Let’s say God KNEW with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the holocaust would happen. If this is the case, he knew exactly what every person in the world would do—who would try to stop it and fail and who would not do anything about it until after it began. He knew who would die, who would suffer, who would react. He knew every event in time. Hence, we can see that if God pre-knows with certainty that one single event will happen within time, he has to know EVERY single event which will ever happen in time which leads up to that event. He has to KNOW everything.

If he knows everything that will happen, how can he “prepare” any of us for anything? If he knows what will happen, all that can happen is what he knows will happen—and if he interacts, he changes what he knew would happen to what he wants to happen. What happens then is not what he knew would happen—so he couldn’t have KNOWN it, he could only have “thought” it. What he “knew” wasn’t what was going to happen—his “knowledge” wasn’t knowledge, but “belief.” And his belief was wrong.

God’s “preparing” someone for an event is only possible if God can interact with those of us in time. He must be able to work within our lives to change us and move us. In order to do that, we have to be ABLE to change. If God knows what we are going to do, then he must allow us to do what he already knows we are going to do—we cannot change from what he already knows we will do. He cannot interact with us within time. (At this point, let me reiterate that my position is that the God of the Bible is ALWAYS interacting with those of us in time—the future is open to possibilities, even within the mind of God—see the verse in the upper left hand corner of the page!).

To say that God is “preparing” someone for something can only be understood in one of two theological positions: Calvinism or Openness. The open sense allows God to work within time because God does not know all of the events of the future—they are open possibilities in his mind. In the Calvinist sense, God has decided what will happen to everyone and is just working out the entire system outside of any free-will of humans.

The notion that God will prepare someone for something he knows will happen, or plan to use an event he knows will happen, necessitates that he knows and is planning to use ALL the events of history. In fact, it really necessitates that God is “determining” all of the events of history. In other words, if we assume that God is able to do anything—to act at all—within a system in which he knows the future, then you must abandon any understanding of human freedom because you have become a determinist. ARMINIAN FOREKNOWLEDGE BREAKS DOWN INTO AUGUSTINIAN DETERMINISM when you start talking about God acting or using events he knows will happen. If you combine God’s foreknowledge of an event (which cannot be wrong) and his eternal desire to use that event then there is little else one can turn to other than determinism. Let me explain one more way. If God knows all events are going to happen and decides to use one of them within his plan, then it must be that all the events leading up to that event happen in order for that event to happen in order for God to use it. Nothing else CAN happen other than the event which God wants to happen so that he can use it.

The entire system must be determined if we are going to assume that God is able to act within the system and knows what will happen (i.e.: no human freedom). If the system isn’t determined (i.e.: human freedom), and God knows what will happen, then he is not free to act within it and contradict anything he knows will happen. God is, therefore, limited by his knowledge (which is the point of my entire master’s degree project). Arminian theology really breaks down into determinism or deism. Take your pick.


Another problem with the statement is this: if God is preparing a specific person to experience a specific problem, what does that say about other people who suffer? Perhaps one can speak of God’s use of the suffering of someone battling cancer in their old age. Perhaps God prepared that person to experience that to use it to his glory (in my opinion, it is just happening and God is working within it). But what about a young girl who is molested by her uncle or cousins? Does God prepare young girls when they are toddlers to experience such things and use them for a specific purpose? The soul-making theodicy is VERY, very poor at explaining these things.

Open Theism doesn’t require a theodicy. God does not plan events or plan to use events he knows will happen. He created an open system with a possibility of evil and works within that system. But I don’t have to justify God’s foreknowledge of terrible events! I can concentrate on God’s answer to the problem of pain being the CROSS, not a theodicy.

The Investigation:

No doubt the reader has heard of an investigation of six nationally known religious leaders regarding their personal finances. Two of those being investigated come from the Atlanta area. One is Creflo Dollar, of World Changers. Dollar, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on November 14, 2007, is defending his lavish lifestyle based on his belief that his riches are directly proportionate to his faithfulness. It’s straight prosperity theology.

The area I currently live in is a very affluent area. We, personally, are not affluent by the same standards as some of our neighbors (by others we are). However, I’ve noticed a real emphasis on prosperity theology in this area and I’ve come to a conclusion.

Prosperity theology is really only popular in affluent areas! One doesn’t go to the Christians in Haiti and preach that the reason they are in poverty is because they don’t have enough faith! The truth is, in prosperity theology the “faith” has not preceded the wealth, but the other way around. Those who are wealthy have examined their belongings, asked why they have them and concluded, “It must be because we are such faithful Christians!”

It’s idolatry, not Christianity. It seems to me that the promise in the New Testament is that Christians will suffer. And the example of the New Testament is that those with the most faith are showing their faith in suffering, not in riches and glory. Show me a New Testament exception to this rule!

It seems so clear in the New Testament. Why do people not see it? I think that Augustinian determinism has something to do with it. Why would one need to explain one’s financial success theologically? Why can’t a Christian who has a lot of money simply chalk it up to his own financial prowess, hard work, inheritance, luck in the lottery…whatever? Why does God have to be behind that? Well, if God is determining every event which happens, one has to start asking why some people have so much and some people do not!

At any rate, Open Theism seems much better suited to deal with disparity of incomes. God is not deciding every event which happens, but the system is open. People can become millionaires if they are so inclined and able. Some people will suffer in poverty because that is also a possibility. God may work within the system and may promise to take care of his people (provide their needs to a point). But I don’t have to answer the question, “Why does God choose some for riches and some not?”

A lot about a little, I guess! Comments?

A Boydian Response to the Bridge Tragedy

In several of my posts, I've discussed the topic of God's will and attempts to: interpret how events fit in God's will, discern what God's will is, and explain why God allows bad events to occur. I have taken the position of an open universe, meaning that God simply created a system in which people (and angels) can choose wrong and events like this can happen. This system means that sometimes tragedies will occur, disease will attack, and accidents will happen. It means God has created a system in which the agents of that system have some control over what happens. It also means that God does not control every event, but interacts with that system dynamically. There is reaction with God--and not every event fits into his cosmic plan. Sometimes what God wants to happen doesn't happen.

On Greg Boyd's blog, Greg posted a response to an Augustinian preacher who attempted to rationalize the bridge collapse in Minnesota in light of God's purpose in the event. As Greg usually does, I think he nailed the response perfectly. Read his blog entry here.

Greg Boyd's Spiritual Warfare Q&A

Greetings friends. This post is just a quick one. I want to share a message by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy. It is actually a 2 hour Q&A session on spiritual warfare. In it they touch on certainty, openness, the will of God, sin, Christianity and the political spectrum, and many other topics. They come to a lot of the conclusions I've come to and published on this blog. And, since we all have a tendency to promote who we agree with, I think the whole thing is definitely a stroke of brilliance.

You can find Greg Boyd's podcasts by searching for "Woodland Hills Church Sermon Podcasts" in iTunes or by clicking Greg's name.

You can also go to Greg's website and download a non-iTunes version. Either way, the message you want is "Spiritual Warfare Q&A."

Was Pelagius Right and, If So, Is Christ's Death Unnecessary?

I'm reading Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy, and it is as fascinating as it is encouraging. Pinnock is trying to find a balance between a pessimistic soteriological stance, in which very few are saved, and Universalism--in which all people are saved. Both extremes are unacceptable, in his view. The discussion attempts to find an optimistic theology of salvation centered around the concept of the "pious pagans" of scripture like Job, Melchizedek, Cornelius, etc. ("pious pagans" is my paraphrase).

In the early chapters of the book, he finds fault with Augustine (rightly) for founding a narrow, pessimistic view of salvation. "There were features in Augustine's thinking which led him inexorably to a pessimism of salvation. In the bitter Pelagian controversy, for example, he was driven to emphasize the sheer gratuity of divine grace at the expense of any human contribution....Augustine took it in the direction of a pessimism of salvation. People are hopelessly lost in sin, can do nothing to save themselves, and deserve nothing from God as judge."(p.38)

Basically, Augustine, in response to Pelagius, went to the extreme of claiming that man cannot do any good on his own and is completely in need of God to offer Grace--even to give him the ability to accept it. But what was Pelagius saying? What is the Pelagian controversy?

I don't want to oversimplify it, but Pelagius was a theologian who claimed that it had to be possible, logically, for the average person to live a sinless life. And throughout history, the name "Pelagius" has been synonymous with controversy--if not heresy. At the heart of people's problems with this idea is the notion that, if it is possible to live a sinless life, Jesus' death is irrelevant. Most likely, the reader feels the same way. But, in the spirit of the Abyss, let me challenge the prevailing wisdom against Pelagius with my own thoughts!

It seems to me that taking a side in the Pelagian controversy is a natural thing to do, and unavoidable. And I understand why most people are offended by Pelagius. There are difficult ramifications to his idea. However, I think there are difficult ramifications of the opposite idea, as well. Let me explain.

Romans 3:23 states, "All sin and fall short of the glory of God," as I remember it. In other words, there is no person who does not sin--for this reason, the point of the epistle is that all people (Jew and Gentile) need a savior! I agree, otherwise I would be a heretic. But does this mean that it is impossible for me not to sin, or does it mean that I am tainted by the human condition to desire sin so much that the odds are infinitesimally small that I should live my entire life without ever giving in once?

Here is the crux of the argument. Most of us, except those of us who have accepted hardcore Calvinism, accept that we are free agents with the ability to choose what we will do from moment to moment. I think biblical Christian theology rests heavily on our own responsibility in sin. For that reason, I have to accept that in any case in which I am tempted to sin, I am faced with a choice. I can give in to the part of me that desires to sin, or I can choose not to. And, if I'm going to be transparent with you--sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If, in every case I am tempted to sin I have a choice, then it has to be logically possible (not probable, but possible) that I should make the right choice in every instance.

Now, most people accept that in each individual case I have free choice. But they tend to stop short when it comes to the overall picture. We have a tendency to say, "No, we can't live a sinless life--it's impossible." But I ask this question then, "At what point in my life do I enter a situation in which I have no choice but to sin?" Which time is it impossible not to sin? And if there is a point at which it is impossible not to sin, how can I be held accountable for something I have no choice in doing? Freedom necessitates the possibility of a sinless life.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that this is likely, or that any of us will achieve this. But I think it has to be possible--if not pragmatically, at least logically.

Usually someone will say something to the effect of, "Well, on a cognitive level, perhaps. But the fact that we can sin without knowing it makes it impossible to go through life without sinning." In response, I offer two answers:

1. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to sin without knowing it--the essence of sin is willing disobedience and rebellion. Romans also states that sin is not imputed when there is no law--and Paul states that when he learned the law sin sprang to life and he died. I think if a person does not understand an action to be sinful, it is not accounted to him as sin because he is not willfully disobeying. I think this is what Jesus means when he tells his disciples that they will not enter heaven unless they become like children--innocent. Anyone who has children understands the profoundness of this verse--children lie and do things wrong all the time, but they are considered innocent because they are not able to comprehend that their actions are rebellion against a transcendent law.

2. Even if it is possible to sin without knowing it, it's still non sequitur that a sinless life is absolutely impossible. Even if is possible to sin without willful disobedience, it is still conceivable that a person should do the right thing in every situation. It isn't likely, but it is possible.

But doesn't this eliminate our need for Christ? If we could live sinlessly, doesn't that mean he didn't need to die? This is the question that I always run into in this discussion. But the truth is, I don't understand why people jump to that conclusion. Let me illustrate with an analogy.

Let's say that I can't swim, but I am invited to a party which will be held on big yacht floating in the middle of a very deep lake. Now, let's say that at one point, someone asks me if I would like to swim in the lake. I know what I should do--I should stay on the boat and put on an extra life vest. But let's say that I choose to jump in the water and immediately begin drowning. Now, I had several choices to avoid my immanent death. I could have decided not to attend the party. I could have made sure to wear a life vest. I could have chosen not to jump in the water. In all choices, I was free--and I made the wrong choice each time. Now, does the fact that I chose the wrong thing mean that I don't need a lifeguard to save me? Quite the opposite--the fact that I freely chose to do something so deadly is exactly why I need a savior!

I think the problem with the argument is that we're assuming that our need for Christ's sacrifice precedes our actual sin. But did Adam and Eve need a savior before they chose to disobey? They lived a sinless life, until they decided to rebel against what God had told them. After this, they needed a savior. Unless they were predetermined to sin, which some people do believe, they could have chosen to do the right thing--in which case, Jesus' death would not have been necessary for them.

In my opinion, the fact that it is possible for me not to sin does not eliminate my need for Christ. Quite the opposite--it emphasizes it. The fact that I could have chosen not to sin makes Christ's sacrifice all the more loving and, well, unfair! We believe that he willingly died for people who are guilty of willing disobedience--they could have chosen to live sinlessly, but they didn't. At the heart of the profoundness of Christ's sacrifice is the fact that we don't deserve it! It is our freedom in the choice to sin that makes Christ's sacrifice so much more profound.

On the other hand, if I can't help but sin then it really isn't my fault that I do, and it is questionable that we need someone to take a punishment that we don't really deserve.

One last note... We are unable to save ourselves--but only after we sin! Before we sin, we don't need a savior. This is why children are innocent.

I am very happy to take comments about this post. What I'm trying to do right now is find a way to come to grips with my own inadequacies and faults as a man and a Christian. I'm getting counseling right now and my counselor and I tend to bump heads about this a lot--he's trying to convince me to not be so hard on myself and others, but I'm stuck on the fact that I must be able to choose to do the right thing from one moment to the next. This is the theology I believe, but in practice it's a hard one. I'm trying to come to grips with self-forgiveness. Any help?

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.