Deistic Theists

In the 18th century there was a popular movement known as Deism. Deism falls under the general heading of "theism" in that it believes in a god, but not quite under true Theism. What's the difference? Deism holds that a divine being put everything in motion and then stepped out of the way, so to speak. Instead of being personal or intimately involved, this god withdrew and let the universe operate on its own natural laws. Some famous deists in history include Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, Ethan Allen, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and even Mark Twain. Deism mostly died out in the 19th century, but vestiges remain.

Christians are not deists. They are theists. The difference between deism and theism is that true theism holds that God is not only personal, but also intimately involved in all things. So Paul claims "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). In Colossians we read, "In Him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). Not only did God create everything; He sustains everything. Without His active involvement in all things, nothing would occur or even continue. That is true theism. Christians are true theists.

Or are we? Clearly the Bible teaches Theism, but I think it is our tendency as humans is to think as deists. "No we don't!" I'm sure you'd object. But I suspect that most of us tend to think in terms of "natural processes" more often than not. As an example, in a conversation I "overheard" the other day a Christian said, "We take hits on our credibility when we make our God to be the 'god of the gaps,' where we use Him to explain only what we cannot understand because eventually when it is shown that natural processes do sufficiently describe the phenomenon we are left looking like idiots." Do you see the argument? If "natural processes" "sufficiently describe the phenomenon," then God is out of the question. (I don't mean that God doesn't exist. I mean that God is removed from that particular question.) The natural thinking here is that things that happen in nature happen by the laws of nature. In fact, the phrase "god of the gaps" is a very common phrase. The idea is simple. We explain what we can explain; we use God to explain the rest. It's how most of us think. It's a mistake. I saw it on a TV show the other day. The show was about "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution." Interesting. The "proof" of Intelligent Design was over and over, "Science can't tell us why" and "science can't duplicate what they do." So ... if science does figure out why or duplicates it, does that negate God? Do you see the problem? When Christians think in terms of the "god of the gaps", it's a serious error.

I hate to admit it, but it's often how I think. There are "natural" processes and there are "supernatural" processes. Telling the difference is often difficult. Let's see. A doctor puts a cast on a broken arm to mend it and that's natural. Someone diagnosed with cancer is suddenly healed and that's supernatural. A friend answers a request and that's natural. God answers a request and that's supernatural. Sometimes you find a solution to a problem and that's natural. Sometimes you need help to solve a problem and that's supernatural. A flower opens to the sun and that's natural. A heart opens to God and that's supernatural.

Whatever it is, it's deism. When we separate "natural" and "supernatural", Nature and God, Science and Christianity, we become deists. When we surrender to the "god of the gaps" notion and admit that there are some things that are "explained by nature", we become deists. As Christians -- as theists -- we do not have any such God or any such division. Things are not simply "natural" or "supernatural". Everything is supernatural. That God, generally, operates things in logical order doesn't negate the fact that God is operating things. The fact that it operates in a way we can comprehend doesn't require that God is not operating things. So when we can explain things by "natural processes," this doesn't demand that we exclude God or shift Him simply to the "gaps."

Do we lose credibility when we claim a "god of the gaps"? Yes, we do. Do we lose credibility when we claim God at all? If we are going to differentiate between "natural" and "supernatural", then, yes, we do. But true theism makes no such differentiation. And let's not pull any punches here. To claim that God is intimately involved in everything is a statement of faith. Conversely, to claim that God is not involved in everything is also a statement of faith. Despite the cry of science to the contrary, both are theological statements that fall outside of the realm of science. So we would hold that just because science can measure and explain things doesn't demand that God is not involved. Scientific evidence does not preclude God. We need to be careful in our own thinking. There is no "god of the gaps." There is only a God who holds all things together. And if we mistakenly think that our ability to figure out natural processes means that we can eliminate God from those processes, it's simply a matter of our own arrogance, not a matter of fact. Let's not be deists.