God of the Gaps: The Mystery of Good

The title of this sermon series, “God of the Gaps”, comes from the field of Christian apologetics. “Apologetics” is a theological term that has little to do with what we think of as an apology. For us, an apology is an expression of remorse, an aspect of contrition for a mistake or misdeed. However, the original Greed word apologia means a verbal defense, a proof of one’s innocence. While our apologies frequently turn into this kind of self-justification, generally speaking when someone begins by offering an apology and ends up defending what they did, we conclude that the contrition—such as it was—was not from the heart.

Christian apologetics has more of the original sense of an apologia. Many of Paul’s speeches in the NT, and many of the writings of the early church, were a defense of Christianity, explaining Christianity to non-believers (e.g. Acts 17:16-34). Christians frequently labor under the belief that a logical, reasonable presentation Christianity ought to convince people by its merits alone. Figure out what people need, explain how Christianity meets that need, and people will come. Figure out what about Christianity puts people off, explain to those people why they’ve misunderstood the essentials of the faith, and they will come. (Is this your experience—as a believer or as an apologist—or is something missing here?)

“God of the Gaps” was a term from Christian apologetics wherein Christians attempted to accept current scientific theories while ascribing all of the gaps in the scientific theories to God. For example, “Since we cannot prove how life started, it must have started due to an act of God.” The problem with this general approach was that it was spurious logic; as such, it convinced few scientific skeptics. Moreover, as science has advanced, the gaps in scientific theories have grown smaller.

This sermon series—which we’re about halfway through—is a series on Christian spirituality. How is it that we come to know God? What happens when we are spiritually stuck? Traditionally, holiness has been equated to perfection, and we have labored mightily to be perfect. However, a wrong-headed spirituality of perfectionism is neither holy nor healthy. Instead, what happens when we look for God in the gaps between who we are and who we are called to be? So far, what the messages have included:

If you would find God, begin by quit pretending to be god of your own life.

If you would find God, empty yourself of false gods, and wait for God to fill you.

If you would find God, admit that you’ll never be perfect (knowing that God will work in you anyway!).

If you would find God, look for God at work in unlikely places (in sin and in sinners).

If you would find God, look for where God is working and join him there.

If you would find God, stay with the unlovable person until you find something to love.

If you would find God, give up your stories for God’s stories.

Christian apologetics fails when it tries to find God in the gaps within natural science. Rather, God may be found when we look for him in the gaps in our spirit. We cannot force him to change us; we cannot fill ourselves with his Spirit. Instead of laboring to see him in our careful observation of virtue, we humbly wait to find him at work in that unlikely place: that part of our life that is still broken and hurting.

Mark 4:26-29

Commentary

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, because they contain similar stories and have a similar style. Nevertheless, each of the three has unique stories and parables. Only Matthew recounts the parable of the wheat and the tares; only Luke recounts the parable of the prodigal son; and only Mark recounts this parable of the mysteriously-growing seed.

The parable contains 3 main actions: sowing; growing; & harvesting. These actions correspond to the spreading of the gospel, the response to the gospel, and the ultimate destiny of all who believe. The main point of the parable (and most parables have only one main point) is the disconnection of the three actions; neither the sower nor the harvester can force the middle phase. Growth within God’s kingdom is a mystery: it happens at its own speed; it happens in its own way; perhaps it doesn’t happen at all; but we know it when it has happened.

Application

The problem of evil has baffled mankind since Eden; perhaps because it can only be approached through facing the mystery of good, and we do not like to acknowledge that good is a mystery. — D.M. Dooling

If I have seen a movie (or read the book on which a movie is based) before Kathy has, my wife has the annoying habit of asking me what is going to happen in the movie. I’ve heard lots of rationalizations from her and others as to why I should “spoil” the movie by giving away the plot ahead of time:

I don’t want to get emotionally attached to characters that are about to die.

I don’t want to jump out of my skin when the villain appears (conversely, I don’t want to get excited if the scene is just a tease and the villain isn’t about to accost the hero).

I don’t like messes—is this problem going to be fixed, or not?

I just want to know how much longer this movie is going to last!

Leaving Kathy out of this, many of us have similar desires to control the action. (Have you ever watched a movie or read a book and said, “No! It shouldn’t have ended like that!”?) Far beyond movies, we want to control our bodies, our minds, our lovers, our families, our workplace, our church, even our God. Sometimes control is beneficial—watching one’s weight, food intake, rest, and hygiene can be important parts of good health. Sometimes control in one area of life promotes mental health—I enjoy running because I feel that I have a degree of control in running (how far and how fast I run, how much I decide to press on through pain, etc.) that I lack in other parts of my life. Sometimes control is a necessary part of a relationship—taking care of children or parents. More often control is detrimental—we are prone to obsess about that thing that we wish to control absolutely. Weight and diet control give way to anorexia; running becomes a “positive addiction”; control within a relationship becomes manipulation.

In our wish to control the uncontrollable, we stake the claim to be God (or, at least, be as God). If science will do our bidding—if we can manipulate the world without hocus pocus—well and good. If science has no framework for dealing with our woes, then we resort to a spiritualism of prayer, chants, incantations, and ritual in our attempts to will what cannot be willed. However God waits for us to submit our will to his, and therein lies the difference between willfulness and willingness:

Willfulness involves the demand for change—usually some change in realities outside the self, but also, at times, the demand for change in oneself. Willingness involves the acceptance that one is not in absolute control, thus opening up the possibility of being changed—being open to what change is possible even if one is not in control. (The Spirituality of Imperfection, p 122)

You will find God in the process of becoming open to change and then being changed. You are the head of wheat in the parable; you cannot force yourself to bear fruit, but you can be open to God bearing fruit in you. You will find God in the process of being open to losing control and then letting go of control. You may sow or you may reap, but don’t for a minute believe that you can force the seed to bear fruit or ripen.

Points to Ponder

The Discipline of Openness:
Willing What Cannot be Willed

Evangelicals traditionally have emphasized personal decision and responsibility as a part of conversion and discipleship. However, any effort on our part to improve ourselves without God at work in our lives is just another attempt at playing God.

In 12-step programs, the 5th, 6th, and 7th steps read:

5) Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6) Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7) Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

Where are you now dealing with trials and troubles? Are you willing change or are you willing for change?

So, growth and fruitfulness within the kingdom of God is a mystery of the Spirit. So why do we blame the pastor, the choir director, the Bible study teacher, etc. when we don’t feel fed at church?

I said that the “God of the Gaps” apologetic is spurious logic, since God is confined to the gaps left by science; however, at the same time I say that you should seek God in the gaps between the person you are and the person God is calling you to be. Will medicine or psychology ever be able to eliminate the gaps between the person you are and the person God is calling you to be? Why or why not?