Tag: Faith & Current Events

I would like to a look at an excerpt of an interview I saw recently of Michele Bachmann. David Gregory is the interviewer and the Show is “Meet the Press.” What I want to examine is Mr. Gregory’s displayed attitude to the Christian Faith and how it reflects an increasingly negative assessment of what is often called “Biblical Christianity.” The assessment is clearly and thoroughly negative, which is not surprising these days. Perhaps I should rejoice, for the Church, to be faithful, will often be hated and considered a sign of contradiction. But another part of me says we ought also to be clear to point to and uncover the growing hostility to the traditional Catholic and Christian faith, lest a perfect storm take aim on us. It is that vein that I raise some of the concerns expressed here.

The general tone of Mr Gregory’s questions to Mrs. Bachmann regarding her faith is, You don’t really believe all that backward biblical stuff do you?….You don’t really take all that stuff too seriously do you?……You don’t really mean to tell me you’d ask God for advice and then do what he told you, do you?….You wouldn’t actually try to apply your (backward) faith to actual, and real decisions you’d make in office, would you?….And by the way, aren’t you Christians really a bigoted crowd when it comes down to it? Like any professional interviewer he uses a “pleasant tone” bu the upshot of his remarks is that the historical Judeo-Christian view is indefensible.

Let’s take a look at the transcript of the interview. As usual, the original text is in bold, black italics and my own remarks are in plain red text.

Disclaimer: I am not indicating, by my remarks support or lack of support for Michele Bachmann as a candidate. I am honestly undecided about the 2012 Presidential election.

MR. GREGORY: From the economy, I want to move on to another topic that’s deeply meaningful and important to you, and that’s your faith in God. This is something that not only motivates you as a person, inspires you as you try to live a virtuous life, but it’s also been very important to your political identity as well. OK, fair enough, if she chooses to make it part of her political identity it’s fair game for the press to question her on it.

MR. GREGORY: And I want to ask you about, not only the role God plays in, in your life but to what extent he’s a motivator for decisions that you make. One example that’s gotten some attention is some remarks you made back in 2006 about your career path, which you’ve talked about here, and I want to play a brief clip of those remarks.

(Audiotape, October 14, 2006)

REP. BACHMANN: My husband said, “Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.” Tax law! I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, “Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

(End audiotape)

MR. GREGORY: Is that your view for women in America? Is that your vision for them? –

Translation- “You can’t really be serious about advocating this backward Biblical principle!”

Well actually, Mr Gregory, this Biblical teaching appears in a significant number of  passages of the New Testament. You may not agree with it, but listen to your tone. You could have asked more neutrally, “How do you think most women in America will understand or interpret your embracing of this?” or perhaps, “Would you like to clarify or distinguish your remarks?” or yet again, “How do you understand the concept of submission?”

What Mr. Gregory does not seem to understand is that many Christians actually believe there is a place for this principle in marriage, and many pastors (including this one) actually teach this. To be sure, the concept of submission is balanced with the command that the husband love his wife as Christ loves the Church. But this is an ancient Christian teaching that deserves more respect than Mr. Gregory shows.

I wonder too, though many interpretations of Islam contain far more restrictive notions for women than any Christian view, if Mr. Gregory or any reporter would question a Muslim with the kind of disdain he shows here to the Christian faith? You decide.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I–during the debate I was asked a question about this, and my response was is that submission, that word, means respect. It means that I respect my husband and he respects me.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Congresswoman, I didn’t even have to check with my wife and I know those two things aren’t, aren’t equal.

REP. BACHMANN: What’s that?

MR. GREGORY: Submission and respect.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, in our house it is.

Actually I think I agree with Mr Gregory here, though certainly not his “gotcha” tone. Mrs Bachmann is, equivocating and watering down the text more than a bit. (I want  to devote more time to this “unpopular teaching” on marriage tomorrow on the blog).

That said, I understand Mrs Bachmann’s “predicament,” in that he has her in a kind of “gotcha” moment, where he tries to make her (and traditional Christians) look absurd and foolish. There is little time on live TV to do the kind of work necessary to properly explain these sorts of biblical teachings. She obviously wants to get on to “safer” issues.

And frankly, though many of us Christians want our favorite politicians to be our heroes when it comes to faith, we have to remember that they are not theologians and certainly not martyrs. With rare exceptions, like St. Thomas More, politicians just aren’t the sort to take a lot of heat for the faith.

REP. BACHMANN: We’ve been married almost 33 years and I have a great deal of respect for my husband. He’s a wonderful, wonderful man and a great father to our children. And he’s also filled with good advice. He…

MR. GREGORY: But so his word goes?

REP. BACHMANN: –pardon?

MR. GREGORY: His word goes?

OK, he’s calling the question and wants clarification, But again notice the tone: “You can’t be seriously be suggesting that a husband actually has headship are you?”

REP. BACHMANN: Well, both of our words go. We respect each other. We have a mutual partnership in our marriage, and that’s the only way that we could accomplish what we’ve done in life is to be a good team. We’re a good team together.

A disappointing answer, to be sure. In effect she is setting aside the teaching when she says, “Well, both of our words go.” If both go, neither go, there is just impasse.

The fact is, in any family, organization, Church, or government, there has to be headship. Someone has to be available, to whom all look and agree, that his answer is the final one to which all the members are bound. In most matters,  consensus can be built, and this is what Mrs. Bachmann seems to refer to in the second half of her answer. But, there are just times when disagreements cannot be overcome, and a final authority is needed to make a decision binding on all. Without this, there is simply endless division and a battle of wills.

The Protestants jettisoned the Pope and they have had endless divisions ever since. For, if no one is Pope, everyone is pope.

Headship is just necessary, even if one thinks it a “necessary evil,” it is still necessary. Even our bodies have a head to unite our members. An organism with two heads is a freak, and an organism with no head is dead. You just have to have a head.

And the Scriptures assign this role to the husband. More on this in tomorrow’s blog.

MR. GREGORY: To what extent does your relationship with God mean that you take cues from God for decisions that you make and that you would make as president. You’ve talked about God inspiring you to marry your husband, you know, telling you to marry your husband, to get into politics, to take certain decisions about your career, as we just talked about.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I do have faith in God, and I learned it right here in Iowa. I was born in Waterloo, Iowa, I’m heading up there to say thank you to everyone who instilled my early values in me. And that began at our church. My parents took us to church every week. We went to a Lutheran church, First Lutheran in Waterloo. And we were–they prayed with us at night, and we prayed before we prayed before we had meal time. They really instilled wonderful values in us. And I recognize that I’m not perfect and that I need God in my life, and that’s really…

MR. GREGORY: God has guided your decisions in life. Would God guide your decisions that you would make as president of the United States?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, as president of the United States, I would pray. I would pray and ask the Lord for guidance. That’s what presidents have done throughout history. George Washington did. Abraham Lincoln did.

MR. GREGORY: But you said that –God called me to run for Congress. God has said certain things about, you know, going to law school, about pursuing other decisions in your life. There’s a difference between God as a sense of comfort and safe harbor and inspiration, and God telling you to take a particular action.

Again, note the implied tone: “You’re not gonna, like, pray, are you?” You’re not going to ask God to guide you or influence your decisions are you? I mean really, come on! A President praying and seeking guidance from God?! Get serious woman! This is a critical job and we can’t mess around with all that superstitious stuff! OK, look, it’s OK to ask God to give you strength, but don’t suggest to me that its OK if God tells you to stand against abortion rights, or Gay Marriage. You have no business allowing your faith to influence your thinking and certainly not your choices! Not that’s just going too far!

REP. BACHMANN: All I can tell you is what my experience has been. I’m extremely grateful to have a faith in God. I, I see that God has so blessed this country. We’ve  heard that song that he’s “shed his grace” on the United States. I believe it. He’s been very good to our country. And I think that it’s important for us to seek his guidance and to pray and to listen to his voice. Imagine that!

MR. GREGORY: Would you appoint an openly atheist person to be a member of your administration, your Cabinet or even as a judge to a court?

Note the implication that a believer is likely to be a bigot, or to be unjust and exclusionary. In supposing this to be a likely scenario Mr Gregory engages in a bigotry of his own. Most Christians I know are well able to interact with non believers in hopes of building bridges. We are also able to distinguish between sacred and secular domains. Frankly with all the bad Catholics running around Congress, and more than a few on the bench, a few principled atheists might not be too bad. (I say this not with glibness, but with great sadness).  🙁

REP. BACHMANN: Well, my criteria, would be first of all, “How do you view the Constitution?” If you uphold the Constitution, if you’re competent, and if you’re–if you, if you share my views, then you can get appointed. That’s my litmus test is, do you stand for the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views.

MR. GREGORY: Right, But an atheist would be acceptable to you as a member of your administration?

REP. BACHMANN: That wouldn’t be a question I would ask.

MR. GREGORY: OK. I want to also ask you about your interpretation of the Bible and your feelings about gays and lesbians. You have said in recent years that opposition to same sex marriage is defining a political debate in this country. You’re opposed to it, you’d like to see a constitutional ban against it in this country. And during a speech that you gave in 2004 at an education conference, you spoke openly and in detail about gays and lesbians. And I want to play just a portion of that speech and have you react, react to it.

(Videotape, November 6, 2004)

REP. BACHMANN: It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It’s anything but gay. … It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that’s why this is so dangerous. … We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: That is the view President Bachmann would have of gay Americans?

I will say, many evangelical Christians lack proper nuance when it comes to speaking on this matter. I think it is proper for us to be very careful and measured in describing our stance on the question of homosexual activity. We ought to avoid unnecessary hyperbole. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is more nuanced and careful, but clear that the homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered and homosexual activity is sinful:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC # 2357-2359)

All this said, Mr Gregory and surely the secular world will not accept even this more careful statement. And frankly it isn’t that different from what Mrs. Bachmann said. Yet this is the principled Catholic stand. I wish Mrs Bachmann had been more careful and hence I cannot per se object to Mr Gregory’s followup question above. But it is clear that the ancient Judeo-Christian teaching on this matter is increasingly being called “hate,” and “judgement.” We must continue to insist that there is simply no way we can approve of Homosexual activity based on a principled and consistent reading of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I am running for the presidency of the United States. I’m not running to be anyone’s judge. I do stand very…

MR. GREGORY: But you have judged them.

This is the typical view of the secular world: “If you disagree with what I do, you are judging me.” In a world where tolerance is one of the only virtues left, “judging” is the only sin left. The fact is, we don’t have to judge what is sinful, God has already done that, and He has every right to judge. We can but only report what God has revealed in his Word and in Natural Law.

REP. BACHMANN: I don’t judge them. I don’t judge them. I am running for presidency of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: Is that the view of gays–gay Americans that President Bachmann would have?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, my, my view on marriage is that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I stand for. But I ascribe honor and dignity to every person no matter what their background. They have honor and they have dignity.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think that gay Americans hearing quotes like that from you would think that that’s, that’s honor and dignity coming from you about their circumstance?

REP. BACHMANN: I am not anyone’s judge…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

And so the interview continued.

I do think Mrs. Bachmann said some things in a way that were not helpful in terms of the image of the faith, but, that said, the substance of her views on the matters above, are mainstream Christian and Catholic. It is true, some among our number debate the specific details and articulation of these teachings, but they remain clear biblical teachings held by many and essential to the patrimony of our faith. They should not be consigned to freak show status by otherwise “tolerant” media types. The tone of dripping contempt articulated by Mr Gregory for things such as the headship of the husband, prayer and sought guidance from God, and the immorality of homosexual activity, are not just directed at Mrs Bachmann, they are directed at the traditional Catholic and Christian faith.

Further, and more dangerously, the traditional Catholic teaching on homosexual activity, as articulated in our Catechism, is increasingly being called “hate speech.” We ought to be very sober about these particular attacks, for soon enough, they will build to legal and social sanctions. This is already happening in places like England and Canada where clergy are being arrested and fined for articulating orthodox Catholic belief on homosexuality.

I am interested in your views, especially of Mr. Gregory’s tone and presuppositions of the Catholic and Christian faith. I might ask that you avoid comments of a purely political nature. As you know, this is not a blog about politics. It  is about the Catholic Faith and culture.

Photo Credit: Screen shot from the Meet the Press video below.

–

One of the more difficult Biblical themes to understand is the concept of God hardening the hearts and minds of certain human beings. The most memorable case is that of Pharaoh wherein, before sending Moses to him God said he would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 4:21). But there are other instances where biblical texts speak of God as hardening the hearts of sinners, even from among his own people.

What are we to make of texts like these? How can God, who does no evil, be the source of a sinful mind or heart? Why would God do such a thing since he has said elsewhere:

1. As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ez 33:11)
2. God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

To be sure, these questions involve very deep mysteries, mysteries about God’s sovereignty and how it interacts with our freedom, mysteries of time, and mysteries of causality. As a mystery within mysteries, the question of God hardening hearts cannot simply be resolved. Greater minds than I have pondered these things,  and it would be foolish to think that a easy resolution is to be found in a blog post.

But some distinctions can and should be made, and some context supplied. We do not want to understand the “hardening texts” in simplistic ways, or in ways that use one truth to cancel out other important truths that balance it. So please permit only a modest summary of the ancient discussion.

I propose we examine these sorts of texts along four lines:

1. The Context of Connivance.
2. The Mystery of Time
3. The Mystery of Primary Causality
4. The Necessity of Humility

To begin it is important simply to list a selection of the hardening texts. The following are not the only ones, but they sample them widely enough:

1. The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. (Ex 4:21)
2. Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country. (Ex 11:10)
3. Why, O LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance. (Is 63:17)
4. He [God] has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them. (Jesus quoting Isaiah Isaiah 6:9-10, at John 12:40)
5. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (2 Thess 2:11)
6. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…..Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (Rom 1:24, 28)

Point I. –  THE CONTEXT OF CONNIVANCE – In properly assessing texts like these we ought first to consider the contexts in which they were made and written. Generally speaking, most all of these declarations that God hardens the heart, come after a significant period of disobedience on the part of those hardened. In a way, God “cements” the deal and gives them fully what they really want. For having hardened their own hearts to God, God determines that their disposition is a permanent one, and in a sovereign exercise of his will, (for nothing can happen without God’s allowance), declares and permits their heart to be hardened in a definitive kind of way. In this sense, there is a judgement of God upon the individual that recognizes their definitive decision against him. Hence, this hardening can be understood as voluntary, on the part of the one hardened, for God hardens in such a way that he uses their own will, whom he hardens, for the executing of his judgment and his acceptance that their will against him is definitive.

A. For example, in the case of Pharaoh, it is true, as the Exodus 4:21 text says above, God indicated to Moses that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart. But the actual working out of this is a bit more complicated than that. We see in the first five plagues, it is Pharaoh who hardens his own heart (Ex. 7:13; 7:22; 8:11; 8:28; & 9:7). It is only after this repeated hardening of his own heart, that the Exodus text shifts, and speaks of God as the one who hardens (Ex 9:12; 9:34; 10:1; 10:20; 10:27). Hence the hardening here is not without Pharaoh’s repeated demonstration of his own hardness, and God, if you will, “cements the deal” as a kind of sovereign judgment on Pharaoh.

B. The Isaiah texts, many in number, that speak of a hardening being visited upon Israel by God, (e.g. #s 3 and 4 above),  are  also the culmination of a long testimony, by the prophet, of Israel’s hardness. At the beginning of the Isaiah’s ministry, Israel’s hardness was described as of their own doing by God who said through Isaiah: For the LORD has spoken: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. (Is 1:2-4). There follows a long list of their crimes, their hardness and their refusal to repent.

1. St. John Chrysostom – of the numerous texts Later in Isaiah (and also referenced by Jesus (e.g. Jn 12:40), that speak of Israel as being hardened by God, and having him shut their eyes, St John Chrysostom says, That the saying of Isaiah might be fulfilled: that here is expressive not of the cause, but of the event. They did not disbelieve because Isaias said they would; but because they would disbelieve, Isaias said they would…. For He does not leave us, except we wish Him….Whereby it is plain that we begin to forsake first, and are the cause of our own perdition. For as it is not the fault of the sun, that it hurts weak eyes, so neither is God to blame for punishing those who do not attend to His words. (on a gloss of Is. 6:9-10 at Jn 12:40, quoted in the Catena Aurea).

2. St Augustine also says, This is not said to be the devil’s doing, but God’s. Yet if any ask why they could not believe, I answer, because they would not…But the Prophet, you say, mentions another cause, not their will; but that God had blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. But I answer, that they well deserved this. For God hardens and blinds a man, by forsaking and not supporting him; and this He makes by a secret sentence, for by an unjust one He cannot (Quoted in the Catena Aurea at Jn 12:40).

C. Of the text of 2 Thessalonians,  God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie quoted in # 5 above, while the text speaks of God as having sent the delusion, the verse before and after make clear the sinful role of the punished saying: They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved….so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness ( 2 Thess 2:10,12).

1. Of this text, St. Augustine says, From a hidden judgment of God comes perversity of heart, so that the refusal to hear the truth leads to the commission of sin, and this sin is itself a punishment for the preceding sin [of refusing to hear the truth]. (Against Julian 5.3.12).

2. St John Damascus says, [God does this] so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (The Orthodox Faith 4.26).

D. The texts from Romans 1 speak  of God handing them over only after they have suppressed the truth (1:18), persevered in their wickedness (1:18) and preferred lust and idolatry (1:23-24), hence, as a just judgement, he hands them over to sexual confusion (homosexuality) and to countless other destructive drives. So here too, though it is said God hands them over, it is really not that simple. God has, in effect, cemented the deal. They do not want to serve them and so He, knowing their definitive decision, gives them what they want.

E. Thus, our first point of distinction in understanding the “hardening” texts is that the context of connivance is important in assessing them. It is not asserted by Scripture that God takes a reasonably righteous man and, out of the blue, hardens his heart, confuses his mind or causes him, against his will, to become obstinate. The texts are usually presented as a kind of prevenient judgement by God, that the state of the person’s hardness has now become permanent. They refuse and so God cements the deal and “causes” them to walk in their own sinful ways since they have insisted so.

Point II.  – THE MYSTERY OF TIME – In understanding these hardening texts, which we have seen, are akin to judgment texts, we must strive to recall that God does not live in time in the same we do. Scripture speaks often of God’s knowledge and vision of time as being comprehensive, rather than speculative or serial (e.g. Ex 3:14; Ps 90:2-4; Ps 93:2; Is 43:13; Ps 139; 2 Peter 3:8; James 1:17; inter al.).

A. To say that God is eternal and that he lives in eternity is to say that he lives in the fullness of time. For God, past, present and future are all the same. God is not wondering what I will do tomorrow, neither is he waiting for it to happen. For Him, my tomorrow has always been present to Him. All of my days were written in His book before one of them ever came to be (Ps 139:16). Whether, and how long I live, has always been known to him. Before he ever formed me in my mother’s womb he knew me (Jer 1:4). My final destiny is already known and present to him.

B. Hence, when we strive to understand God’s judgments in the form of hardening the hearts of certain people, we must be careful not to think he lives in time like we do. It is not as though God is watching my life like a movie. He already knows the choice I will make. Thus, when God hardens the hearts of some, it is not as though he were merely trying to negatively influence the outcome, and trip certain people up. He already knows the outcome and has always known it, he knows the destiny they have chosen.

C. Now be very careful with this insight, for it is a mystery to us. We cannot really know what it is like to live in eternity, in the fullness of time, where the future is just is present as the past. If you think you know, you really don’t. What is essential for us is that we realize that God does not live in time like we do. If we try too hard to solve the mystery (rather than merely accept and respect it) we risk falling into the denial of human freedom, or double predestination, or other wrong-headed notions that sacrifice one truth for another, rather than to hold them in balance. That God knows what I will do tomorrow, does not destroy my freedom to actually do it. How this all works out is mysterious. But we are free, Scripture teaches this, and God holds us accountable for our choices. Further, even though God knows my destiny already, and yours as well, does not mean that He is revealing anything about that to us, as though we should look for signs and seek to call ourselves saved or lost. We ought to work out our salvation in a reverential fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).

D. The Key point here is mystery. Striving to understand how, why and when God hardens the heart of anyone is caught up in the mysterious fact that he lives outside of time and knows all things before they happen. Thus he acts with comprehensive knowledge of all outcomes.

Point III. – THE MYSTERY OF CAUSALITY – One of the major differences between the ancient and the modern world is that the ancient world was much more comfortable in dealing with something known as primary causality.

A. Up until the Renaissance God was at the center of all things and people instinctively saw the hand of God in everything, even terrible things. Job of old said, The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised….if we have received good things at the hand of God, why should we not receive evil?” (Job 1:21; 2:10). Thus the ancients would commonly attribute everything as coming from the hand of God, for he was the “first cause” of everything that happened. This is what we mean by primary causality. The ancients were thus more comfortable attributing things to God that we are not. In speaking like this, they were not engaged in a form of superstitious or primitive thinking, but they emphasized that God was sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent and that nothing happened apart from his sovereign will,  He is the Primary Cause of all that is.

1. Of this ancient and scriptural way of thinking the Catechism says, And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes [e.g. human or natural]. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. (CCC # 304)

2. The Key point here is understanding that the ancient Biblical texts while often speaking of God as hardening the hearts of sinners, did not, as we saw above, mean that man had no role, or no responsibility. Neither did it mean that God acted in a merely arbitrary way. Rather, the emphasis was on God’s sovereign power as the first cause of all that is and hence he is often called the cause of all things and his hand is seen in everything.  We moderns are uncomfortable in speaking this way as we shall see.

B. After the Renaissance man moved to the center and God was gradually “escorted” to the periphery. Thus our manner of thinking and speaking began to shift to secondary causes (causes related to man and nature). If something happens we look to natural causes, or in human situations, to the humans who caused it. These are secondary causes however, since I cannot cause something to happen unless God causes me. Yet increasingly the modern mind struggles to maintain a balance between the two mysteries of our freedom, and responsibility and God’s Sovereignty and omnipotence.

C. In effect we have largely thrown primary causality overboard as a category. Even modern believers unconsciously do this and thus exhibit three issues related to this.

1. We fail to maintain the proper balance between two mysteries: God’s Sovereignty and our freedom.

2. We exhibit shock at things like the “hardening texts” of the Bible because we understand them poorly.

3. We try to resolve the shock by favoring one truth over the other. Maybe we just brush aside the ancient biblical texts as a “primitive mode of speech” and say, inappropriately, “God didn’t have anything to do with this or that.” Or we go to the other extreme and become fatalistic, deny human freedom, deny secondary causality (our part)  and accuse God of everything; as if he were the only cause and had the sole blame for everything. Thus, we either read the hardening texts with a clumsy literalism, or dismiss them as misguided notions from an immature, primitive, and pre-scientific age.

D. The point here is that we have to balance the mysteries of primary and secondary causality. We cannot fully understand how they interrelate, but they do. Both mysteries need to be held. The ancients were more sophisticated in holding these mysteries in the proper balance. We are not. We handle causality very clumsily and do not appreciate the distinctions of primary causality (God’s part) and secondary causality (our part, and nature’s too). We try to resolve the mystery rather than hold it in balance and speak to both realities. As such, we are poor interpreters of the “hardening texts.”

Point IV – THE NECESSITY OF HUMILITY – By now it will be seen that we are dealing with a mysterious interrelationship of God and Man, between our freedom and God’s sovereignty, between primary and secondary causality. In the face of such mysteries we have to be very humble. We ought not think more of the details than is proper for us, for, frankly they are largely hidden from us. Too many moderns either dismiss the hardening texts or accept them and sit in harsh judgment over God, as if we could do such a thing. Neither approach bespeaks humility. Consider a shocking but very humbling text where Paul warns us in this very matter:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Romans 9:14-20)

In effect, none of can demand an absolute account of God for what he does. Even if he were to tell us, could our small and worldly minds ever really comprehend it? My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways, says the Lord (Is 55:8).

Summary – In this post, rather too long, we have considered the “hardening texts” where it seems that God is said to harden the hearts of certain people and groups. And so he does. But texts like these must be carefully approached with proper distinctions, appeal to the scriptural and historical context, and deep humility. There are profound mysteries at work here: mysteries of God’s sovereignty, our freedom, his mercy and also his justice.

We ought to careful to admit the limits of our knowledge when it comes to such texts. As the Catechism so beautifully stated, when it comes to texts like these, they are to appreciated as a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. (CCC # 304)

This video says a lot of how many of us in Western Culture hold views of God that are out of balance. Most of the views are partially true, but they end up being false because they are partial and out of balance.

I am often struck with the mystery of the relationship that dogs and cats set up with their owners. While I realize that we humans do a lot of projecting of what we want their behavior to mean, it still remains to me a deeply mysterious reality of how our pets come to “know” us and set up a kind of communication with us.

Dogs especially are very demonstrative, interactive and able to make knowing responses. Cats are more subtle, but my own cat, Daniel knows my patterns and also knows how to communicate when he wants water or food, or just a back rub. He’s also a big talker, meowing all day long, to great people and draw attention from them.

As I say, this interaction with our animals is a mysterious thing. I do not raise this to suggest they are on par with us intellectually or morally. Scripture is clear enough that animals are given to us by God, and that we are sovereign stewards over them. And while it is never right to abuse animals, it is right that we make use of them in appropriate ways, and even make use of some of them as a food source (cf Gen 9:1-3).

But animals, especially our pets, are also to be appreciated as gifts of God. Scripture is also clear that the animals will be part of the renewed creation that God will bring about when Christ shall come again in glory:

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9)

Hence, when Christ from his judgment seat shall finally say, Behold, I make all things new (Rev 21:5), and with John we see a new heavens and a new earth (Rev 21:1), I have little doubt the animals will share in that recreated and renewed kingdom where death shall be no more (Rev 21:4).

Part of the Kingdom! So even now, without elevating pets (no matter how precious) to the full dignity of a human being, it is not wrong to think that they will be part of the Kingdom of God in all its restored harmony and beauty.

Maybe now, in the mystery of our interaction with them, God is giving us a glimpse of the harmony we will one day enjoy with all creation. Scripture says,

For indeed, creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Romans 8:19-21)

Yes, creation itself is eagerly waiting for the day when God says, (in the words of an old spiritual) Oh preacher fold your bible, for the last soul’s converted! And then creation itself will be set free from its bondage to death and decay and be gloriously remade into its original harmony and life-possessing glory that was once paradise.

Perhaps the mystery of our pets is that they are ambassadors for the rest of creation, a kind of early delegation set by God to prepare the way and the connections of the new and restored creation. Perhaps they are urging us on in our task to make the number of the elect complete so that all creation can sooner receive its renewal and be restored to the glory and harmony it once had. Who knows? But I see a kind of urgency in the pets I have had. They are filled with joy, enthusiasm and expectation of something great.

Joyful expectation! Yes, I have powerful memories of the dogs of my youth running circles around me, running to greet me when I arrived home, and jumping for joy when I announced a car ride or a walk. Even my cats of recent years, though more subdued, saunter over to meet me at the door with a meow, arched back, and a rubbing up against my leg. And when I see this joy and expectation in my pets the words of Romans 8 above will sometimes come to mind: creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

All deep mysteries to be sure, but surely pregnant with meaning, for we, humanity and all creation for the birth of a new creation.

****

Photo Credit Above: This is a picture of I took of my brother’s Alaskan Malamute “Kaila” lying down with the family parakeet in early fulfillment of Isaiah 11 quoted above!

Enjoy this video as a dog looks with eager expectation to its owner. A friend of mine thinks this video was doctored. But I do not think so. Surely the human voice coming from the dog is added. But as for the mannerisms, they are just what I used to see in my dogs. The eyes and ears mean the dog is hearing his owner suggest a treat of some kind. This leads to nervous gestures such as standing, yawning, pacing, and even a moaning which makes the dog’s mouth move as though talking, but he is just making small sighs, yips and moans.  As you view this video, consider the words: creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.