Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 2
Arnold said the Bangladesh work is “easy to take your finger and trace the work of God through it,” especially because they did not choose the area, the building, or even the village; how does that view of God’s providence challenge common Christian instincts to prioritize strategy, control, and “best use of resources”?
Another way to ask: They didn’t choose the place, building, or village, yet God clearly worked through it. How does that challenge our desire to plan everything, stay in control, and always pick what seems most “efficient”?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Arnold’s telling pushes believers to see God as actively arranging circumstances—even “unplanned” disruptions—to connect people and advance His purposes. It challenges the instinct to treat ministry mainly as human optimization, as if the “best plan” is always the most strategic.
- Arnold said this story has “so clearly the touch of God on it,” making it “easy to…trace the work of God.”
- They “didn’t actually choose the working area”; another organization chose it, and Arnold insists “that wasn’t an accident.”
- Even lodging was not controlled: the rented house wasn’t ready; a government official stopped them (“you can’t stay in that house anyway”) and moved them to “an empty government building.”
- Arnold emphasizes God wanted them near a particular man: the school founder who drank tea nearby, whose son was an ambassador—suggesting God’s “placement” was relationally targeted.
- The scale (265 volunteers) made them known, implying God used visibility and continuity, not a tightly controlled “in-and-out” plan.