One of the things that most bugs me about the way that my coreligionists talk about the activity of God is that they almost alway see that activity\u00a0ex post facto<\/em>.<\/strong> That is, they make a decision, or something happens to them, and then they say something like, \u201cThe Lord\u2019s hand was really in that.\u201d<\/p>\n Todd Littleton<\/strong> pretty much calls bullshit on that in a great post about thinking theologically before and in the midst of decisions, not just after. He uses his family\u2019s choices of where to live as the example that drives the post. Here\u2019s a snippet:<\/p>\n Theology done in prospect takes Divine possibility into account first, not last.<\/strong> For instance, it did not specifically occur to us when we turned down Tyler a house might possibly await.<\/p>\n In the course of God-talk, theology in prospect calls attention to what God might do, the way God might act. Our church owns a bit of property. We have batted around the idea of selling a small parcel. During a recent discussion, Cary contended that from his perspective we might be putting an end to possibility if we sell. Who knows what growth might occur, what ministry might make use of the land, or other act where we might consider the Spirit leading.<\/p>\n Imagine these two sorts of conversations occurring around the same event. We Evangelicals tend to be schooled in both. We know when to employ retrospect. And, we know when to suggest prospect. It is when these two collide that we face the interpretive battle. Whose interpretation? Whose meaning? And, how could God-talk divide us.<\/p>\n