Providence ... Oy

I recently posted about Jeremiah Burroughs's Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, which was a challenging read but timely in terms of its subject matter. When my Uncle Bruce sent me that book a year or so ago, he also sent John Flavel's The Mystery of Providence. I took it upon myself to take a three-day weekend that ended yesterday and, as this is not a book I saw myself finishing very quickly on the subway, thought I would take a chunk of time out of each day to try and knock this thing out. With a little extra diligence, I succeeded.

It was interesting reading two dense theological books by British guys who have been dead for a long time so close together. I've definitely been challenged intellectually over the past month, which is good for someone who has been out of school for several years. Both books were tough, but I thought Providence was much more readable. Flavel is a very engaging writer for someone dead so long. And one thing I thought was really funny was the fact that the editor who wrote the foreword for the 1963 edition seemed genuinely concerned that readers would want to read about issues that concern the "modern" church, not this old fusty stuff like whether God is in control. As it turns out, this book is one of the most relevant I've ever read. It dates itself occasionally, and obviously the language is a little archaic, but the principles could not be more current.

Flavel sets his book up similarly to Burroughs; first a Biblical defense of the doctrine of providence followed by practical applications. Why does no one argue this way anymore? I miss the times when people felt a responsibility to support their presuppositions. Flavel makes a lot of very specific arguments for why we have been blessed by providence. Apparently, providence is to be credited for the fact that we were not born "in America, among the savage Indians, who herd together as brute beasts, are scorched with heat, and starved with cold, being naked, destitute, and defenceless." Well. Guess we dodged a bullet there. Something that rang a little truer: "What a mercy was it to us to have parents that prayed for us before they had us, as well as in our infancy, when we could not pray for ourselves? ... It is a greater mercy to descend from praying parents than from the loins of nobles." Amen. Thanks, Mom and Dad.

So, to be honest, I couldn't help but think about how much fun it is to be 26 years old and single while I was reading this book. I guess that's the aspect of "providence" that I'm having the toughest time with right now. A lot of well-meaning people who were trying to keep me from getting pregnant in high school sort of unwittingly led me to believe that if I behaved myself and stayed pure, I'd have the happiest marriage in the world. That may yet be true, but having a happy marriage would seem to require one to be married at some point. One very hard lesson that I don't think I've fully learned has been that all the good behavior in the world does not guarantee a person anything, and that bringing my nearly unblemished dating record before God will get me nowhere. He's not especially interested, since He has plans that do not depend on me. I guess that's what providence is. And this book really really challenged me on that.

In a chapter titled "The Work of Sanctification," Flavel asserts that "[corruption] shows itself in dependence upon creature-comforts and tangible props. O how apt are the best of men to lean upon these things, and stay themselves upon them! ... So for individuals, how apt are they to depend upon their tangible supports! Thus we lean on our relations, and the inward thoughts of our hearts are that they shall be to us so many springs of comfort to refresh us throughout our lives; but God will show us by His Providence our mistake and error in these things." So is that what this is? I don't deny that I would struggle with making more out of marriage than should be made, and I've felt duly chastised for that tendency on innumerable occasions up till now, but this concept as a black/white issue troubles me. I know too many people who misuse the relationships they've been given, and those relationships don't seem to be going anywhere. It may be that they are suffering as a result of their misplaced trust in the other person, so I guess I should be thankful that God is trying to squeeze this out of me before I put someone else in that position? Maybe.

Something he said that I hadn't really thought about was that believers do well when they look at their circumstances and try to see how the promises of Scripture are being fulfilled in them. I think that makes a lot of sense. Some would probably call it circular logic, but I think instead it's just about having a particular frame of reference. If I assume that all of God's promises to me are true, then I will interpret my experiences in light of those promises. Not a bad way to be more thankful. This comes around to bite a little bit, though, because it turns out that one thing Scripture promises with great frequency is that God will not tolerate idols. "Whatsoever we have over-loved, idolized, and leaned upon, God has from time to time broken it, and made us to see the vanity of it; so that we find the readiest course to be rid of our comforts is to set our hearts inordinately or immoderately upon them. For our God is a jealous God, and will not part with His glory to another ... If Jonah is overjoyed in his gourd, a worm is at once prepared to smite it." I get it, Jonah. It's rought out there when you don't have your gourd. But does the gourd always need smiting? Don't we in certain ways idolize everything God gives? Or does He just pick the one or two things we set our hearts on the most, and keep those out of reach? Good grief.

Another pretty serious conviction came when reading about Flavel's understanding of the relationship between providence and prayer. I appreciate prayer as a means of communicating with and knowing God, but I have to confess that I often feel pretty silly asking Him for things. This has always been a problem for me, and I know that it stems from an overdependence on providence: if God is really in control of everything, what's the point? It feels foolish to ask God for something when He already knows the outcome. I know that is an immature viewpoint to take, but it's something I just haven't been able to reconcile. I feel patronized getting on my knees and begging Him for something when it's already been decided. Flavel refutes this by saying that "the more prayers and searchings of heart come between our needs and supplies, our afflictions and reliefs, the sweeter our reliefs and supplies thereby made to us. This recompenses the delay, and pays us for all the expenses of our patience." I'll concede that to a point; I certainly intend to be happier on my wedding day than anyone ever has been. But what happens when you don't get the "reliefs and supplies?" What is the use of prayer in those situations? But Flavel also says that we should "never undertake any design without Him ... Certainly, if He does not perform it for you, you can never have what you desire and labour for; and though He has designed to perform this or that mercy for you, yet for these things He will be enquired of, that He may do it for you ... It if our folly to engage this instrument and that for us, to attempt this way and that to achieve our end, and all the while forget Him upon whose pleasure all instruments and means entirely depend. That which begins not with prayer seldom ends with comfort." Oh. I won't try to talk back to that.

Perhaps the most important point he makes is also the most obvious one and certainly, for me, the most encouraging: that in the end, all providences lead to heaven, and that's a sight better than what we're likely to find on earth under any circumstances. In addition, Flavel argues, the things that happen to us on earth are necessary to make us ready for heaven: "What is there in all the world that can give a soul such joy and comfort as to find himself by everything set on and furthered in his way to heaven! ... However contrary the winds and tides of Providence at any time seem to us, yet nothing is more certain than that they all conspire to hasten sanctified souls to God and fit them for glory." He also explains that, in a strictly technical sense, eternity is quite a bit longer than our lives on earth. I actually kind of hate that argument, because I know it will feel great to get to heaven and to know that interminable perfection stretches out before us, but does this preface have to suck so much sometimes? I'm the first to say that I know everything I feel is truly a longing for heaven, and I am definitely comforted by the fact that heaven will bring all our frustrations to an end, but that doesn't help with the now as much as I'd like.

I am easily affronted; I have a severely overdeveloped sense of fairness, and if I feel that I'm note being treated fairly, there isn't much that can rile me up more than that. Maybe part of that is being the oldest child. Oldest kids tend to get blamed for things that aren't their fault, and that combined with a sense of protection probably creates that tendency. But regardless of why, I'm frustrated with my heart for not understanding the providential love of God, for still thinking I can manipulate circumstances to get what I want, and for not graciously accepting whatever comes my way. This book didn't change my life, but it did make me think, and I hope that the concepts in it will come back to me for a long time to come as I continue to catch the curve balls good old providence throws. Maybe the best I can hope for is a sense of humor about it all; good old John Flavel certainly had that. The book ends thus: "How Providence will dispose of my life, liberty, and labours for time to come, I know not; but I cheerfully commit all to Him who has hitherto performed all things for me." Well spoken. According to the foreword, he died "suddenly" at Exeter in 1691 while engaged in settling the differences between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. No word on the cause of death, but I'd be willing to be bet he had a smile on his face.

Song In My Head: "My Prerogative" - probably the most anti-providential song around, and not one I particularly liked before, but does anyone else think Anoop might be one of the most awesome American Idol contestants ever??