In demonstrating the harmony between Genesis 1 and the Big Bang theory, John Lennox distinguishes between explanations of agency and explanations of mechanism: ‘Now the idea of a “Big Bang” is a point of concern for some people who have been influenced by Richard Dawkins’ simplistic insistence on our choosing either science or God. However, these are false alternatives, on the same foolish level as insisting that we choose between Henry Ford and a car-production line to explain the origin of a Ford Galaxy. The fact is that both of these explanations are necessary: they do not contradict but complement each other. Henry Ford is the agent who designed the car; the car-production line is the mechanism by which it is manufactured. Similarly, we do not have to choose between God and the Big Bang. They are different kinds of explanation – one in terms of God’s creational agency and the other in terms of mechanisms and laws’ (John Lennox, Seven Days that Divided the World, p153).
This is an extremely helpful distinction to maintain in describing how God works through his invisible hand of providence. The explanation that God sends the rain (Matthew 5:45) is not in competition with the scientific explanations of the cause of rain which we can now predict (Luke 12:54). God the agent, uses his creation as the mechanism to cause it to rain. The creator of the universe doesn’t have to work against his creation in order to be sovereign over it, he often works in, though and by his creation. God is of course free to use his visible hand of miracles to achieve his purpose, but he is also free to use his invisible hand of providence. The scientific explanation of what caused the rain explains the mechanism, but the theological explanation of God sending the rain explains the agent. Both agent and mechanism are required for it to rain.
It gets a bit harder when God’s mechanisms also have agency. God uses not only clouds and winds as instruments, but people as well. And people are agents in and of themselves; unlike the clouds and the wind, we make choices and are responsible for them. Isaiah describes the Lord wielding the king of Assyria like an axe (Isaiah 10:15). On the macro level, God is the agent, the king of Assyria is his mechanism. Compared to God’s agency, our agency is mechanistic (Proverbs 21:1). But if we zoom in to the micro level, the king of Assyria is the agent of Israel’s exile and his army was the mechanism that brought it about. Like everyone else, the king makes real choices that he is held accountable for.
Ultimately, God holds the king of Assyria accountable because of his evil intent (Isaiah 10:7). God is not concerned about what we do with our hands, but the intentions of our hearts (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23), for the Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). God can achieve his good purposes in and through the harmful purposes of his instruments. God is glorified as good and those with evil intent are condemned as wicked in the same event with the same consequences (Genesis 50:20). The ultimate example of this is demonstrated in the cross, where the most wicked act of humanity is the most gracious act of God (Acts 2:23).
Forgetting God’s sovereignty or pitting his sovereignty against ours can be a tragic mistake. The king of Assyria is judged because his arrogance led him to believe that he was the ultimate agent of the Assyrian conquest (Isaiah 10:12). This is precisely what happens to Nebuchadnezzar who declares “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power?” Nebuchadnezzar is then judged because he does not “acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes” (Daniel 4:28-32). Understanding the place of our will in God’s sovereign will is crucial if we are to let God be God. Knowing who we are before the creator of the universe is the essence of the fear of the Lord, and denying it is the essence of sin. As James so powerfully warns: ‘What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil’ (James 4:14-16).
Thinking of God’s sovereignty in terms of human sovereignty is a very natural thing to do because we can relate to human sovereignty, but it is something that the bible expressly forbids. As Paul wrestles with God’s sovereignty in election, anticipating the question “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” Paul makes it very clear that God is the potter and we are his clay (Romans 9:19-21). Instead of acknowledging God’s sovereignty over everything, we can too easily reduce God to one who is sovereign in the same way that we are sovereign, working for or against the will of others, as opposed to through the will of everyone. Either our will is raised to the level of God’s or his will is reduced to the level of ours. Either way, we can too easily view the achievements of our will as something that God didn’t bring about (Assyria and Nebuchadnezzar) and/or viewing any tension between our will and God’s as something that we can put God on the witness stand for and call him to account (Job and his three friends). This is the nature of God’s rebuke to Job, how can the one who was created talk back to the one who created him? Are we in the place of God?
