To Save or Not to Save?

In light of recent events, where there was an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Donald Trump and a successful assassination attempt on Charlie Kirk, Samantha asks the question, “Why did God save Donald Trump but not save Charlie Kirk?” Talk about a difficult question (for a number of reasons) . . .

The question, “Why did God 'save' Donald Trump but not 'save' Charlie Kirk?” is a good one, but it also brings a few assumptions to the table and also requires clear definition in order to make those assumptions.

Let me offer three assertions with details . . .

First, God can be “active” or “inactive.” By His “being active” in an affair, we might say that He got involved, answered prayer directly or executed His special providence. By His “being inactive,” we might say that something occurred but that it was by “chance” or “luck” or sheer circumstance. For what it's worth, the Bible speaks of both realities.

Think of prayer and imagine this scenario . . . You pray for rain – you're wanting your grass to be watered; your next-door-neighbor prays for no rain – he's wanting the tennis courts to be dry. Without being silly about location/proximity, we have two possible outcomes: it either rains or it doesn't. Then, we have a question (based on either outcome): did God answer prayer, or was such going to happen or not happen (naturally?) without God's direct, special intervention? Again, I should note that the Bible speaks of both possibilities.

(I should also note that I'm one of those who holds the view that “miracles” [if defined appropriately] occurred earlier in human history and have now “ceased” to occur; God's intervention today, which I still believe in, is indiscernible and would be perceived as “natural” by the atheist – God acts, answers prayer and does so by means that are perceived as natural.)

This all sends us to a second assertion . . .

Second, God is ultimately involved in everything. This means that everything in this existence (continuum) “goes back” to God; it all leads back to Him. So, if we start with the most minor of things or events (e.g. stubbing one's toe on the door, etc.), we can ultimately work our way back to God in an “ultimate” sense. With whatever “event” in consideration, we'll ultimately be able to go back to an omniscient (all-knowing) God who put this existence into existence and thus, in that “ultimate” sense, is credited with such an event . . . He “foreknew” the event would take place and even created the materials that brought such about.

This may sound like a “cop-out” but it isn't . . . It could both be said that God was responsible and that God wasn't responsible for a certain event. Definition would need to be given for the word “responsible.” Let's use the case for “stubbing a toe on the door” . . . On the one hand, it could be said that one stubbed his/her own toe, made the choice to move his/her foot and live or be in the house where the door was – the individual could take personal credit for stubbing the toe. On the other hand, God could take credit for the event – after all, God created everything and thus put everything into motion initially.

At this point, it'd be worth looking at Exodus 4:21, 7:3,14, 8:15,32, 9:12,34, 10:1,20,27, 11:10 and 14:4,8. Repeatedly, both God and Pharaoh are said to be responsible for the “hardening” of Pharaoh's heart. On the one hand, Pharaoh is responsible; on the other hand, God takes credit for it, but of course, God isn't sinister on the point. (It's worth recognizing that the same “word” from God that “softened” Moses “hardened” Pharaoh; see also this in Acts 2:37, 5:36 and 7:54 – the same striking message from the apostolic group had two different effects on two different classes of people.)

So, the point again is this: depending on definition, God could take credit or credit the individual. In an ultimate sense, God could be “credited” with anything/everything that occurs, but in a direct or personal sense, there is a “distance” that possibly exists and the credit could be attributed to a more immediate source/individual/cause.

Third, in connection with the specific question – and to reiterate a point just made – we'd need to offer precise definition to the terms “save” and/or “not save” (just as we'd need to define “responsible” or “harden” in the above scenarios).

With all of that in view, let's give the question a “go” . . .

Why did God save Donald Trump but not save Charlie Kirk?

Well, in a personal, direct way, I'm not sure that God did save Donald Trump. It could be the case that the event, while bizarre and rare, was purely circumstantial or coincidental. I mean to say that God was not directly or personally involved in some way that specifically navigated those events. In fact, any naturalist, atheist, etc. would argue against a “God explanation” – of course! – and say that circumstance/coincidence was exactly what happened, insisting that there's no evidence that God did intervene. (There's a point there!)

Now, as bad as this is to write: we can say with certainty that God didn't save Charlie Kirk. But, similarly, that doesn't make God an active agent in his murder, his killing. Again, it could be the case that the event, while bizarre and rare, is circumstantial or coincidental. This one, of course, is easier to accept as not involving God in a more personal or direct manner because the outcome, interpreted by most of us as only being “bleak” – an interpretation that might need a second look? – doesn't need a “God explanation” at all but rather seems to deny one.

Let me say this again: neither of these events demands a “God explanation,” but both events could be attributed to God in an “ultimate” sense.

But, let's go one step further . . .

Could it be the case that God did intervene in both in a more personal, direct way? beyond just an “ultimate” sense? or, could it be the case that God might've intervened in one event in a more personal, direct way, beyond an ultimate sense, and not in the other? Hmm . . .

I think this . . .

The God that we serve is doing everything that He can to redeem a world. He's doing His part to redeem the world. Just as in answering one man's prayer for rain positively (and thus answering another's prayer for no rain negatively) – see above – God could “save” Donald Trump and “not save” Charlie Kirk . . . but, this sends us back to the character of God. If we commit ourselves to the faithfulness of God, then we must remind ourselves that He's omniscient (all-knowing) and is thus so brilliant that He can weigh all of the variables simultaneously so as to effect the outcome that is “best” for redeeming a fallen world. Whatever God's doing, He's doing as part of His ultimate faithfulness to redeem a fallen world . . .

I'm not sure where Donald Trump falls in God's ultimate plan. I'm not sure where Charlie Kirk falls. I'm not sure where the United States of America falls. I know this: God is faithful to humanity and wishes for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4,5; 2 Pet. 3:9). So, what might be some of the possibilities here then?

First, it's possible that God is using Donald Trump (and his associates) to turn a country back to him. The slightest acquaintance with the Old Testament prophets suggests that He's done this very thing before. God used pagans like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the Great to jolt people, grab their attention and move them back to Him. God's using Donald Trump for the good of a nation might be part of what God is doing because He seeks to save people (from sin, of course) within the States?

Second, it's possible that God is using Charlie Kirk's death to support that very reversal, to jolt the country, grab the attention of people about what is serious and important and move them back to Him. Think about it . . . Has God gotten the attention that He has from the unchurched crew in the States as much as He has recently because of Charlie Kirk's death? For whatever it's worth, numerous stories of reversal of unchurched, liberal, non-free-speech individuals have surfaced; I mean to say that loads of people have started “thinking” for the first time in a good while. Did it take the death of a man, Charlie Kirk, in order to get that to happen? Sure looks that way, doesn't it? And, can God “use” things like this for good and great purposes – give Job 42:10,11 (if you know the “Job” story), 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Philippians 1:29 and Romans 8:28 a read and see if God can do that? (And, then, think of the cross . . . wicked though it was, wasn't it God's instrument/tool/method/way for redeeming a world – see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 – then think about it.)

For whatever it's worth, sometimes, too, we only see “bad” when there's actually “good” there . . . Was Charlie Kirk's death only “bad”? Ehh . . . With all of the good that's come from it, we have to at least stop and think. Without the thorn in the flesh, Paul wouldn't have learned humility; without his trials, Job wouldn't have learned about God; without marriage, I might not have learned about selflessness; without children, I might not have learned about patience . . . and the list goes on . . . Just because something is “tough” or “difficult” doesn't mean that it's “bad” – it might actually speak to its' value. No wonder Paul could come to call “suffering” a “gift” or a “grace” from God (cf. Phil. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:7-10)! We've got to stop thinking flatly, materially, physically only . . . Sometimes, “bad” even works out for greater good!

So, let me summarize . . .

First, I'm not sure how “active” God has been in these events. He's “active” in an ultimate sense, for sure, but were these events circumstantial/coincidental, or was God more personally/directly involved? Tough to say, and the answer could go either way. I'll never know in this lifetime.

Second, I've insisted on God's omniscient and omnipotent character as being faithful to humanity. Whatever He's doing, He's doing His part to redeem a world. He's weighing all of the variables and doing His part. We, humans, throw wrenches and create those awful variables, but who'd you rather have making decisions in light of those impossible variables than Almighty God, who knows all of the variables and how to hold them in harmonious tension?

Third, if God's doing His part to change and redeem a world, then what about me? What am I doing to make the world a better place? Maybe, such horrific events – sad, though they are – are exactly what's needed to make some of us stop and think? Maybe, there is a reason that God might've “saved” one individual but not another? Maybe, He's got “the big picture” in view and is navigating circumstances so that the greatest number might be saved? Maybe, I'm one of them? Maybe, God's been trying to reach me? Maybe, I've not thought about serious things until now? Maybe, it's time to get busy? Maybe, this is exactly what it took? Maybe, I shouldn't let these events and thoughts slip by in vain?