We've heard the term, of course. It's often used as a euphemism for God or some other "entity" (real or imagined) that protects and/or provides. (I put "entity" in quotes because there is sometimes a distinction between "Providence" and "divine Providence," where the latter refers, obviously, to God while the former is more at "luck" or some other force.) The term was in common use a century or more ago and few batted an eye. Today, of course, not only does our secular society object, but so do Christians, indirectly if not directly. You see, the concept of Providence is premised on a Sovereign (with a capital "S") God, and Christians aren't so sure anymore about that. I mean, doesn't our Free Will take precedence over God? When Bryant Gumbel asked Anne Graham Lotz why God didn't protect us from 9/11, she told him that America kept forcing God out of the public square, so "God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life." Not so Sovereign after all.
Scripture disagrees. God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). "He does whatever He pleases" (Psa 115:3). He "does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan 4:35). And so many more (e.g., Prov 21:1; Isa 46:10; Prov 19:21; Psa 135:6; Job 42:2; Rom 9:18; 1 Tim 6:15; Isa 43:13 ... need I go on?) And we cringe a little because ... well ... we like to think that we have a say in God's plans. It should, however, be a comfort to know that God protects and provides regardless of our agreement, shouldn't it? It should give us no end of peace to know that He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph 3:20). We should rejoice to know that God "will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Ah! There it is again. Providence!
Scripture says that everything was made "from Him and through Him and to Him" (Rom 11:36). That is, everything is from, for, and about Him in the end. So any time we prefer to think of things as from, through, and to us, we err ... and fall short of His glory. We ought to embrace His Sovereignty in general and His Providence in particular ... for His glory and for our peace of mind. The diminishing of self in favor of the glorification of Him in all things can only be to our benefit.
6 comments:
While I agree with your points about Providence, and have started the Piper book on the subject, I'm wondering about your conclusion regarding the Lotz quote. We see in history that YHWH has backed away from nations and allowed those nations to pursue their own agendas without His influence. It looks to me like her comment actually implies a Sovereign God, as opposed to denying it.
So much hinges on the sovereignty of YHWH, yet the very notion is anathema to so many.
Too many attempts have been made to absolve God of any responsibility for evil that really just absolve Him of any responsibility for anything.
Has He backed away out of being a "gentleman" or has He backed away out of judgment?
I would think it depends on how you define "backed away". If by it, it is meant that He has reduced His grace in the region and "given them up to their lusts", then yeah. But if by it, it is meant that He has simply let a nation do it's own thing without His interference, that would seem to indicate a lack of control over the situation.
"Has He backed away out of being a "gentleman" or has He backed away out of judgment?"
I'd say it works out the same way, so why take issue with her means of expressing it? If she had added, "He's done it before, why would He not act the same with regard to our rejection of Him?" His judgement is what happens when He lifts His protection of us due to our disobedience. Whether He gets all Cecil B. DeMill or simply says, "Apparently you choose this. Be my guest." it works out the same way.
The problem with "God is a gentleman" is God loses. If God acts out of judgment (as indicated in Romans 1), God is acting on His own plan. If Man refuses Him so He gives up, it is Man's plan and God's plan failed. "I had intended to save everyone, but, alas, I can't." As opposed to a God who is "willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known."
Post a Comment