Every theologian who wants to think biblically has to believe in providence. Like it or not (and after all, why not like it?), the Bible is about a God who rules and governs world events, from geopolitical reversals to the fate of little birds. This God is not surprised by how things turn out, is not just doing his best with the materials at hand, and is not too distracted to care about details. On the contrary: He’s got the whole world in his hands.

But there are some people who approach the doctrine of providence in an abstract way, and follow their abstraction out to bizarre and unacceptable results. Instead of studying scripture to get a sense of how God works his will through immediate causes, and along with the decisions of human agents, they begin with an axiom as rigid as one of Euclid’s: “Everything That Happens is Done By God.” And they develop that axiom as deductively as a ninth grader who has just learned the word “ergo.” The abstract notion of providence they end up with renders them incapable of getting the right interpretation of (for instance) un-abstract books about providence like Isaiah, and they do even worse at interpreting the course of events in their own lives. What eats away at a soul worse than “pastoral” advice from the school of abstract providence?

Some people teach about providence in a way that suggests that God chose each event and put it into play directly, such that it is a lack of faith to seek explanations anywhere outside of the will of God. Faced with any event, no matter how atrocious, they think the right question is, “Why did God do ______.” Fill in the blank with your favorite tragedy. Soften it to “Why did God allow _____” if you will, but as long as the abstraction haunts you, the question doesn’t really soften.

Who are these “some people” who are teaching this “abstract providence?”
(more… )