I was catching up on my reading, going through the pile of Winston-Salem Journals that had stacked up during our week in Myrtle when I came across a "Letter to the Editor" that caused me to pause.  I should point out that I consider the "Letters" a vital piece of my daily reading since they combine with my cup of coffee to really get my blood flowing in the morning.  Let’s just say that I often find myself in strong disagreement with my fellow Journal readers. 

Anyway, the letter that caught my attention ran on April and was submitted by Mr. Chuck Hemrick of Germanton.  He wrote:

While reading the Journal
on March 30 and 31, I was appalled that little was said about the
recent rains being a huge factor in helping to put out the fires on
Sauratown Mountain…

But Sunday and Monday
mornings’ rain were God-sent and an answer to prayers from all around
this community. My wife and I woke up each morning singing the old
church hymn, “Showers of Blessings,” thankful to God for sending the
rain!

In between those two paragraphs he points out that he also is appreciative of the efforts of local firefighters, but thinks the paper did not give God the credit he (she, it?) was due.  My question for Mr. Hemrick is this, "If God is responsible for sending the rains that stopped this wildfire then wasn’t he also responsible for sending the severe drought that provided the tinder for the wildfire?"

You see this logic all the time in stories about natural events.  A volcano explodes and the lava flow miraculously diverts around a church in its path.  Of course that’s seen as a miracle delivered by God, but somehow God had nothing to do with the volcano exploding in the first place.

Now Mr. Hemrick does say that God answered prayers of the local community, but I imagine that lots of people who lost their houses to the wildfires in Southern California last year were also praying quite hard for rains to save their homes as they watched them burn to cinders.  Were the prayers in North Carolina simply better than those in San Diego so God heard the former and not the latter?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Christian and believe in God, but my faith does not include the belief that God directly intervenes in matters like saving property from wildfires.  And I think that if I did believe that then I would also have to believe that God intended the wildfire to be there in the first place, and that God intended for New Orleans to flood, and for the homes in San Diego to burn, and for every other "bad" thing that’s ever happened.  I don’t believe that because I tend to think of God as a kind of hands off manager that put all of this stuff that we call life in motion and then let those of us living the life to muddle through with the tools God provided us. 

I don’t think I have the right to expect others to share my understanding of faith, so I think that folks who have a faith system like Mr. Hemrick’s, one that sees God as actively involved in all aspects of life, are just as entitled to that belief as I am to mine.  My question is how can they see God as being active in providing miracles, but not active in creating the situations that necessitate those miracles?  How can they see God’s intervention as a one way street?