I was just in a conversation, and used the language of God’s providence to describe a particular situation where God provided for us in a way that only with hindsight can we look back and see His hand at work. I like the fact that providence is a reality of our God. I also like the ecumenical range it has. Most Christians can appreciate a concept of God’s providence (in fact I would be so bold to say all Christians); it is comforting to know that we can trust a God that is sovereignly in control. What I also like about “providence,” is that it does not necessarily seek to provide an explanation or even definition of what it is referring to; other than, that is, to God’s super-control of all reality. When thinking of providence, it’s not necessary to provide a metaphysical schema for understanding it; it’s enough to simply appeal to the ineffable nature of God’s control. The one “controlling” and “qualifying” factor to this, is that providence actually is understood (even if unconsciously) in different ways per the various theological systems available; I think the thing that ought to qualify it, is that it is a “Christian” concept, and thus tied into a “Christ-revealed” understanding of the Father and Holy Spirit (or tied into a Triune understanding of God). There are some systems of thought that have a different approach to articulating their doctrine of God, so that will have some consequence on how they understand “Providence;” nevertheless, I think in general conversation amongst Christians, “providence” has a pretty expansive reach of what is being appealed to when a Christian speaks of “Providence.”

Just something that hit me as I said it in conversation . . . in other words just an off the top reflection.