So Then, What Exactly Does God "Do"?

Last week, I posted a response to John Piper’s suggestion that the Minneapolis tornado was a God-sent warning to the ECLA for voting to allow gay clergy.  Across the web, many bloggers and commentators agreed that Piper overreached with his tornado theory.  However, I was struck by a particular train of thought among some of the comments.  

What I heard some commentators saying was that God does use things like storms etc. as warnings but that Piper was wrong to be specific about this incident. Or that storms and the like are acts of Divine Providence but it's wrong to try to interpret specific storms as such.  This raises the question, doesn't such a view make the notion of Providence almost meaningless? It's like saying, "Oh there definitely is this thing but I can't give you any specific examples, but I'm sure they're out there."  

This, along with some comments on my post, got me thinking more deeply about the subject of how God acts in the world.  Giving up the idea of God acting in the world makes the whole idea of God essentially meaningless, in my opinion.  I have no intention of doing so, but at the same time am hesitant to start attributing natural disasters to God.  Is that inherently inconsistent?

For those of us who don't believe God sends tornados, how do we believe God acts and communicates?  Is our cosmology influenced by subjective factors? Would we be more inclined to believe God sent the tornado in Minneapolis if the KKK was meeting there?  Do we have a coherent view of such things or do we evade the question by invoking concepts like “the mystery of God” or “humility about truth”? 

Over the past year, our church experienced a very unlikely series of events that led to us moving into long-hoped-for new worship space.  We view it as answer to our prayers.  However, to be fair to John Piper, how is believing God led us to a new space quantitatively different than Piper believing God sent a tornado?  Where do we in the non-meteorological crowd draw the line between what we view as plausible acts of God and ridiculous ones?  Is it just a matter of taste?  Do we dismiss Piper merely because his God seems too Cecil B Demille-ish for us and arbitrarily accept our more George Lucas-ish deity? 

Granted, unbeknownst to many Christians, theologians have been exploring these issues for over a century.  There are many promising ways forward, including ideas such as Process Theology.  However, outside the academy, it seems many of us are criticizing what we deem superstitious, while being inconsistent in our own theology, and offering no real alternative for fear of rocking the boat.  A robust and believable theology of how God acts in the world may require us to rethink and reframe how we speak about our faith.  Are we prepared to do that?  Do we even want to?  

How do you resolve this tension in your beliefs?  More importantly, how do we wrestle with these concepts in our churches? 

Comments

[Dennis Winkleblack]

Dear Friend Don:
Ever since reading some years ago that hurricanes are necessary for continued life on planet earth -- something to do with controlling temperature levels above ground as well as maintaining good under water ecology -- I've been much less tempted to blame or credit God for weather. Weather is as weather does. Get out of the way, learn to live with it, don't build houses on ocean's edges, etc. Bad things happen, but that's true of all life. For me, God stays out of the weather business, willing to advance creation's agenda in other ways.
As for your new worship center, an incarnational God will always nudge here, lure there to advance redemption's agenda. And you get a new worship center and a heart full of gratitude.
Thanks for your faith and witness.

[Don Heatley]

Hi Dennis,
Glad you found me here. Your insight about the hurricane reminds me of something John Polkinghorne once said about earthquakes. Evidently tectonic plates allowed the elements needed for life to get to the earth's surface. So it may be that in order to have life on earth, we need earthquakes and tsunamis. I guess it gets down to Einstein's questions about whether or not God had a choice in how God created the universe.

Like you I believe God stays out of the weather business. However, I want to explore where the line is between what we believe God is involved in, and what God is not. Are we basing it on anything more than personal preference?

Thanks for adding your voice and most especially thank you for all you did to help us get Vision off the ground. It will always be appreciated.

Peace,
Don

[Jamie Hewitt]

I realized how long this was when I finished it. But, for better or worse, here is my response to your questions/thoughts:

Ultimately, I think that we do end up invoking, or rather, backing ourselves into the reality of the 'mysteriousness of God' or of our necessary 'humility in truth' (but I will try to answer the question as much as I feel is possible). If truth is defined by a robustness that encompasses everything, then the empirical truth we can deduce through looking at humanity's approach towards God/the Ultimate is that it is never satisfied enough/robust enough/believable enough. The reason we, as Christians, are still having these discussions at all is that, over the course of humanity and with countless individuals infinitely more brilliant and devout than ourselves, the questions still remain largely unanswered to differing degrees. In light of this, how can we not approach truth with humility? How can we not trust that God is mysterious if it seems obvious that no one person or stream of thought has ever been capable of discerning the answers? That said however, it does not alleviate our responsibility to know and understand the God of creation and of redemption. I tend to think of our ability to know truth could be approached as our trying to look at something as simple as a sphere. We can look at it over a period of time and from different angles and see all of the sides, but it is a physical impossibility for a human to see and experience the entirety of the sphere in its fullness simultaneously. As I look at one side, the other is hidden. We are left to gain a sense of the sphere's entirety by looking at it from different perspectives and, doing our best based upon what we see and know (rather hope) to be true, to draw logical conclusions about what we cannot see from what we can. No metaphor is perfect, and this simple one is no exception but I think that it is somewhat helpful to see that our understanding truth seems to be dependent on a willingness to look at something from as many perspectives as possible over time but to acknowledge that there is a sense that we cannot see and experience it within its entirety. When our perspective of God is A, B and C may be hidden and similarly true from other perspectives. When this is seen in its proper context (the fact that truth is somehow available to us - just a the sphere is available to look at and hold - and beckons us to know and understand while at the same time it is coupled with the mutual humility of our inability to understand or see it fully) our ability to know and claim truth seems to exist on a continuum of sorts. How much truth can we faithfully ascribe to the logical conclusions we draw. In the case of the sphere, there is a high probability, based on my experience of similar objects, that though I may not be able to see the hidden side, it is congruent with my expectations. God, for better and for worse, is not as round and predictable though. This is my contention with John Piper's comment about the tornado or a woman at my church who says the Lord withheld rain for her daughter's wedding. Looking at the number of tornadoes and their frequency and who they affect, the amount of certainty within the continuum of truth that one could ascribe to such an occurrence seems limited. Given that there are a number of weddings of people who follow Christ that have been rained out, I might suggest that the certainty in that statement is subject as well. Does that mean that it, by definition, is out of the realm of possible truth? No. It just means that I am probably going to be very hesitant before I publicly proclaim such things as the hand of God, especially from a national platform. I am nervous (perhaps to a fault) to proclaim things as the Lord's intentional hand in my life but at the same time I'd be a liar if I stated that I don't feel the presence of the Lord often; a sense of what I could only describe as feelings of, 'Was that you God?' For example, while praying recently over a number of difficult situations I ended up in the middle of a soccer field. I couldn't tell you why I was in the middle of the field because the sprinklers were on all around me (I even vocalized that question to myself at one point). But there I stood, not knowing why, praying. When I opened my eyes, there was a perfectly formed rainbow (both ends touched the ground in a picturesque arc) in the midst. I witnessed a rainbow at 10:45 at night - a sign of God's covenant with humanity which looked at from one perspective, is God's promise to never call it a day on us, to remain in communion in the midst of whatever brokenness they may be part of. I have a sense that God had a hand in that. Can I explain it with a reductionist meteorological tact? Yes, but it would seem to be an answer blind to the reality of what seemed to be going on. In some ways, the foundation of such a question is thus rooted in our epistemology. Do we believe this is it, or that there is more than just what we see? If we trust that there is more, then like a two-dimensional world's attempt to experience/explain three dimensions we will always come up short (there is a book titled 'Flatland' that is subtly and brilliantly profound). So where do we end up? Probably trying a failing to know and understand God a lot; something that all of us (John Piper included) can say we have done. We are left to repent when we miss the point and, seeking God, try and make sense of the pieces. I tend to see a beautiful (yet admittedly hard to fully grasp) sense that God chooses humility in His interactions with his creation. If looking at Jesus, we as followers gain a picture of God, then what does Philippians 2 teach us of God's sovereignty? Coupled with the creation, in which God speaks creative ability to the Earth and the sea (from which pour forth living things, not directly from the hand or words of God) and calls man into a creative partnership with Himself, there is a sense that at the climactic moments of history, God has expressed himself with a sense of self-imposed limited sovereignty. God partners with His creation. God does not count all his infinite potential as something to be grasped, but instead puts skin on to be the Immanuel. How do we reconcile that with much of what we might interpret as God's sovereignty within Romans? There are certainly some perspectives that seem to make it easier, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't wrestle with seeming contradictions myself. It is a testament again to our inability to understand it all. If we trust and believe that God works everything to the good of those who believe, perhaps we should, for the sake of consistency, see that in the same light in which we most likely see God's statement in 1 Corinthians in which God assures us that He provides a way out for us to stand up under temptations. God is no less faithful to us when we find ourselves laying down to temptations. My view (or an aspect thereof) is somewhat in line with process theology though it differs in other ways. God's desire for the redemption of creation seems to call him into every aspect of reality. God's redemptive potential exists within every moment and thread of existence. That potential is, as expressed in how God used the physical body of the incarnation in Jesus, best reflected in hands, feet, and lips that respond faithfully to His presence in such moments. Jesus is the visible image of God invisible. We are the body of Christ. It is our responsibility to know and understand God as much as we can so that we can correctly embody Him. Practically, although there is the potential for the truth in John Piper's claim about the tornado, I wonder if there were other truths of which we, as disciples of Jesus, could be far more certain of. Perhaps such examples of greater truths might be the potential to not allow denominational differences to halt us from reaching out to heal brokenness within the church (I honestly do not know if Bethlehem Baptist has or will support their brothers and sisters in Minneapolis tangibly, however, this post is not as much addressing the issue of what may occur quietly under the surface, but rather what is proclaimed from the rooftops). There may potentially have been truth in John's comment; the Lord may have revealed truth to his earnest heart (I feel that at the very least, I can one-hundred-percent say that I trust the sincerity of John), however there are/were in my opinion greater opportunities for followers of Jesus to espouse truth that is far more certain than God's providential causing of the tornado as a warning to the Lutheran Church. In such a moment, it seems more fitting and wise that the church and its leaders might proclaim with word and action God's hope for redemption over than espousing things that have an inherently low certainty: God's specific providence through a storm being proclaimed over God's call that the church actively seeks to exist in such a Jesus-imitating way so that none be in need. In the end: could the tornado have been God's providence? Possibly. How sure do I feel we can be of that in light of experience? Not very sure. In that, claiming such a statement, especially in that it is connected to an issue the church has historically handled horribly seems to be to be incredibly unwise.
I don't know how helpful it is. I see God's sovereignty (in the sense God's role in the momentary perpetuation of reality) as something that is (if we take the most climactic moments of history as our sample) most often willfully laid down. However, every aspect of it is some sense intentionally endowed with His redemptive potential if we respond to those aspects faithfully as the hands and feet of the body of Jesus. Coming full circle, I don't think we can escape the humility of what truth we can hope to understand or of our ability to wrap ourselves around the mysterious will of our creator. That does not excuse us from such conversations where we seek, through dialog and an honest willingness to be changed, to know and understand Him and the way His hands continue to shape and sustain creation. I feel that I have a sense of peace in focusing my thoughts on the aspects of God's will that I can absolutely claim to be certainly true (His hope for redemption through our faithful response in following Jesus into each moment and circumstance we encounter) while still allowing the possibility in my heart that God can work outside of my mold and conception. In a sense, if reality were viewed as a stream of moments and circumstances, God finds ways to offer His reflection in the waters however turbulent or still they may be. I believe that God, could and throughout history has caused such water to do very un-water-like things. Where to draw the line? I don't think there is a line we can draw, as much as we might want one. In some sense, we just need to seek the Spirit and approach situations with as much wisdom as possible. I hope this doesn't seem too elusive of an answer to the sincere questions posted. I simply feel that if we learn anything from those who have walked before us, it is that, regardless of the robustness of our theology, there will be unanswered questions. Like Jacob in the river bed, we find ourselves unable to overcome this mysterious God-figure we encounter. That is something we have to both wrestle with and understand. In that, I think we learn more about who God truly is. I pray wisdom on us as we often attempt to find and sometimes put God's words in the mouth of the world around us.

[Mystical Seeker]

A robust and believable theology of how God acts in the world may require us to rethink and reframe how we speak about our faith.

I would agree with that comment. I am personally a big fan of process theology, and I am aware that a lot of pastors have flirted with it, but ultimately I think there is a big fear of the paradigm shift that would be involved in really embracing such a theology. For example, it is extremely common, even in "progressive" churches, for a part of the service to be devoted to intercessory prayer. And yet, what really is the point of such prayer? If its purpose is strictly to lay our concerns before God, that is one thing, but then it wouldn't be "intercessory" because it wouldn't be asking God to "intercede" by dint of omnipotent intervention. If you accept, as I do, that God under process theology acts via persuasion rather than coercive intervention, then intercessory prayer really becomes a waste of time and sends the wrong message, because it continues to see God as an omnipotent interventionist. But are churches really ready to take that step?

[Don Heatley]

Jamie,
I think your analogy of the sphere is very helpful. Definitely consider the whole seminary thing. Churches could use more deep-thinking people like you as pastors.
Don

[Don Heatley]

Mystical Seeker,
Great blog. I'll be visiting it often. As far as intercessory prayer goes, I don't agree that intercessory prayer is a waste of time, particularly in a worship setting. Wouldn't it be possible within a process mindset to pray for a lure of God? In addition, the sharing of prayers within a community has value within the community itself. These prayers can be shared without necessarily requesting miraculous divine intervention.
Don

[susan mac]

Don,

I ran across your blog on "accident" while doing some research for a youth group I'm leading. I have really enjoyed reading them. You have reflected many of the things i wonder about so often.

Thanx for keeping me thinking

Susan

[Thomas]

Friend,
I don't want to upset anyone but I feel I must post this response. Firstly, only in the bible did God use the weather to warn and/or destroy mankind. Since the bible was written there have been no confirmed acts of God using the weather for his purposes.
I would ask you to think hard about all things attributed to God. The good and the bad and to also look around you while thinking. Does God favor his own? Do more good things happen to those who believe and rely on him? The simple answer is no. God doesn't favor believers or sinners, at least not while we are living. Believers have the same issues as non-believers and sometimes a little worse. But in a believers mind they will attribute all good to God and forget about the bad. Some may even call it a mental illness whereas the believer will by-pass all the bad in life and concentrate only on the good and attribute that good to God, whereas a non-believer will attribute the good to something they done and believe they are the cause of the good.
It all really depends on what you believe, but while you are living, non-believers and believers are all equal. No amount of prayer will change circumstances. God does not intervene in the day to day lives of any of us. He simply puts his word out there so that whoever believes will receive life after death. It's a hard knock for Christians but it is the truth. In the tornado you talked of, I'm sure a good Christian person lost their home. If God were to favor one over the other, that would not have happened. It is not until death that we are vindicated. And not until judgement may we drop the pains of life.