1. Does the "sovereignty" of God necessarily entail the idea that God
"controls all things" (events, processes, etc.)? How does one move from
"sovereignty" to the concept of "control"?
2. Would this concept of divine "control" (or governance?) mean that God
directly causes each "event" to happen?
3. In the extreme, then, would God's sovereignty lead inevitably to a
concept of divine "micromanagement" of all of the affairs of the Creation?
Terry answered "Yes," in most cases, with several references to the
Westminster Confession for support. (In my own heritage we would have
looked for support in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, or
the Canons of Dordt.)
First, with all due respect for the Confessions as an important historical
documents, I must say that just because the WC says it's so doesn't make it
so. That humanly crafted document was written in the conceptual vocabulary
of the 17th century and with little knowledge of the character and
behavioral capabilities of the Creation compared with what is known today.
Furthermore, I think that both the Confession and contemporary Evangelical
Christianity move far too fast from the word 'sovereignty' to the concept
of manipulative control. (Could it be that we are overly impressed with
power?) To speak of God as 'sovereign' is to compare God to a king--that
is, to use the 'royal metaphor.' But does a king 'control' or 'micromanage'
his subjects? No, not ordinarily, unless he is despotic in character. No,
benevolent kings--and kings who respect the being of their subjects-- make
their wishes known to all subjects, but the subjects are responsible for
effecting the king's wishes.
I know that interpreting sovereignty as omnipotent control is commonly done
in my Calvinistic community, but I sincerely think that this needs to be
reconsidered.
Jumping quickly ahead, I find it far more meaningful to see divine
sovereignty as a concept that reminds us that we, as creatures, are fully
accountable to God, the Creator, for our behavior. As subjects in a kingdom
are accountable to the king for their behavior, even more so are we
accountable to God for ours. To me, then, divine sovereignty is not about
divine control, certainly not about divine micromanagement of all
creaturely affairs, but about our accountability to the one God who has the
authority to hold us to certain standards of action.
As have said before, my concept of a "fully-gifted Creaton" places less
emphasis on control and much more on God's creativity (in conceptualizing
the robust formational and functional economies of the Creation) and
generosity (in giving creatures such remarkable capablities for action).
Perhaps my responses to the next series of questions will clarify what I am
here trying to say very briefly.
4. If God micromanages all events and processes in the Creation, then are
there no authentic contingencies?
5. If God micromanages all events and processes in the Creation, then do
creatures ever do anything themselves?
6. If God does all and creatures do nothing, what happens to the ideas of
authentic creaturely being, or of creaturely responsibility? Would not God
now be responsible for all that happens (since he is said to "control" all
things)?
In contrast to the perspective that Terry represented well, I think that
God withholds micromanagement-style control so that the contingencies in
what takes place in the Creation are fully authentic--so authentic that
they are unpredictable and unknowable even to God.
By so withholding such coercive control, God allows creatures to do ther
own action. And, since creatures really do act, they can be held
accountable for it.
Thus sovereignty, in the spirit of the royal metaphor, is preserved. God is
sovereign. Creatures are responsible. God gives authentic being to
creatures. Creatures really do act and are accountable for their use of the
gift of their being.
Howard Van Till