Dearest Rachel –
I’m not entirely sure how it is that my mind found itself pondering this concept throughout the course of the last night. Quite possibly, it was due to the video I saw that was reviewing Kurt Vonnegut’s book Slaughterhouse Five. I had read the book (and watched the film, for that matter) in college, as part of a class on avant-garde literature, and always found the protagonist (I hesitate to refer to him as any sort of ‘hero’) Billy Pilgrim to be woefully passive as he literally drifts, unmoored, back and forth endlessly through the events of his life.
I realize that the book was, in part, Vonnegut’s way of working through his own case of post traumatic stress disorder, so the helpless, thousand-yard-stare attitude of “there’s nothing I can do” encapsulated in the Tralfamadorian credo of “So it goes” is more than understandable. And sure, there’s nothing that Pilgrim could have done in order to prevent the big events of life, like the bombing of Dresden, around which the book essentially revolves. But after circling about through his life several times, one would think he would have the gumption (or at least, the sense) to restrain his friend Edgar Derby from picking up that teapot amid the wreckage of Dresden, and being summarily executed for a leader immediately thereafter. Billy may not fear death, since it’s just one more point along the continuum of endless, back-and-forth life; but who knows what good Derby could’ve done, had he gotten back and resumed teaching school after the war.
***
From all of this, I find myself at odds with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. This may seem like quite a jump, but hear me out. The idea that every step in life, every decision, every choice has been ordered by God‘s design, is a difficult one to accept. Not so much because most of our decisions are seemingly completely trivial – why should God concern Himself with what I’m having for breakfast, for instance? – but because if it’s true, He’s created most of humanity for the sole ultimate purpose of eternal destruction, which flies directly in the face of the concept of His being supposedly omnibenevolent: in short, ‘all good.’
Given his omniscience (‘all knowing’-ness), it can easily be accepted that He is aware of all of the choices we have, do and will make in our lives, whether good or evil. And even going back as far as the story of Joseph, He is clearly able to take the most evil of motivations, and bring good results out of them – what am I saying? He’s God, He can do anything, of course. But predestination suggests that He has chosen (from the beginning of time, no less!) those people that will come to Him within the course of their lives – and by extension, those who will not make that choice.
The problem is, when you observe the world, both past and present, it’s fairly obvious which group of people is in the majority. Throughout history, religion has been intertwined with politics to the point where any deviation in beliefs is tantamount to treason – even, sad to say, among various ‘Christian’ denominations. Odds are, most of those nations’ citizens merely adopted the prevailing denomination in order to get along, and never let it otherwise affect their lives. Imagine their surprise when, asked at the gate of heaven, “what did you do with My Son?” and all they could answer was, “I dunno… whatever the king told me to, I guess.”
And that’s just within Christendom; that only amounts to a fraction of the world’s population, both historically and in the present day. Indeed, most countries are outright hostile to both God and Christ these days. Some, like the nation-states of old, are that way because of conversion being a betrayal of that nation’s own historical faith and culture. Others, such as the vaunted ‘religion of peace,’ have been taught to crush and destroy the infidels, both among them and throughout the world on behalf of their god, as if he was not powerful enough to smite the unbelievers on his own, and needed help for some reason. And in the West, certain secular beliefs have taken the form of religion, insisting on the suppression of all dissent to their new credos. That seems to be a lot of people who were created with the sole purpose from day one of sending off to eternal punishment.
To its credit, the doctrine does admit that we as humans have no idea who these people are, or are not. Anyone we meet could be part of ‘the elect,’ as opposed to otherwise, and so we still have a responsibility to witness to them, to be instrumental in effecting God’s plan for their salvation. However, it does suggest that in some cases – in fact, many cases – we are just beating our heads against the wall, because that person we’re trying to reach isn’t part of ‘the elect.’ At some point, we need to realize that they’re a lost cause, figuratively shake the dust from our sandals, and move on to more promising prospects, all the while understanding that for them, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was like a mild sunburn in comparison to what they have in store.
Needless to say, this seems like an untenable way to think of God, especially one who, explicitly claims to be all good, and the source of all good. It leaves me thinking that I’ve missed some thing in this description of him. Then again, I don’t believe that we’re strict Calvinists, anyway, so perhaps the point is moot. I’ll get back to that later.
***
I don’t recall whether you ever read Slaughterhouse Five; to the best of my knowledge, you never did. As with me, it would’ve probably been an assignment in some English class, rather than some light reading over summer vacation. It would not have been something to have ‘enjoyed’; it was one of those ‘important’ books (especially given the zeitgeist when it came out, amid the war in Vietnam).
But there was a series that you enjoyed that employed a similar conceit, at least, with regard to time travel: Quantum Leap. along with Doctor Who, we would occasionally watch this together in the TV lounge at the student union, or in the common rooms of either of our dormitories.
Now, I know that Scott Bakula was a bit of a draw for you, and I’ll admit he had a decent set of pipes on him (especially after you sent me his rendition of “Somewhere in the Night” among ‘our’ various songs). But the main thrust behind the series – apart from the ‘unstuck in time’ nature of his travels – was the fact that his character was driven to “set right what once went wrong,” for whatever reason, which never occurred to Billy Pilgrim. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it was a reaction to either the concept of predestination or the fatalism of Slaughterhouse Five – I think that would be giving it too much credit – but it clearly differentiated itself from them in that way.
***
One final thought along these lines; in the early days of our marriage, we would meet for a Bible study at the home of a longtime friend of my Dad’s. In the course of time, Mr. Parker would eventually become something of a mentor to me, and he and his wife to the two of us, although I don’t remember much of our various conversations.
One thing I do remember, probably because it was brought up multiple times, what is the argument between predestination and free will. He would generally acknowledge that the debate existed, and that it was beyond his paygrade, but he had a theory about the gates of heaven. He suggested that, as you approached, they were inscribed with the open invitation “Whosoever will, may come.” Once inside the gates, however, there would be another statement engraved upon the archway: “Chosen from the beginning.”
Neither he nor his wife have gotten to see that gate yet to prove it. I’d be curious to know from you if you could lend credence to his thought that both concepts could exist and be true simultaneously; a sort of theological quantum state, like Schrodinger’s salvation. It would certainly set my mind at ease as to the purpose and a plan of God for each and everyone of us. But, I suppose, that’s not for me to find out.
Anyway, I’ve gone on long enough for now; I’ve got to get on with the day (which probably includes breakfast – I wonder what He’d want me to have?). Keep an eye on me, honey, and wish me luck. I’m probably going to need it.
Letters to Rachel 