Blog:Salvation is for the "childlike"? Matthew 11:25: Difference between revisions

Before now, every time my dog would show me his simple, pure love, love that is unreasoned and unconditional, I would stumble over my intellect’s obstructions to pure faith. Why can't I be like that to my Father? But I'm not his father; he is not my child.  He is a dog and doesn't have the reason to know it.  

"Childlike” our priest explained, is to have a — the Father. Childlike is to respect, recognize, obey, love, and need the Father. A "childlike" faith is humble, honest, and yearning for the Father.

When Satan tempted Adam and Eve to "be like God," it was not just the Tree of Knowledge they stole from, they rearranged the family tree: they would no longer be God's children. Satan, himself not of the image of God, and thus not a child of the Father, jealously, spitefully tried to disconnect us from our Father. But God won't have it. While handing out the due punishment (the "curse"), he bestowed upon Adam and Eve the glory of father- and motherhood (the "blessing"). And then he set us off on our long course back home.

Salvation, then, is the return to childhood with the Father. God doesn't owe us that inheritance, but he wants us to ask for it back. As our Deacon taught the other day, St. Thomas called it "congruent merit" that we merit but do not deserve salvation, for which we become worthy only through and by Christ. In Matthew 11, Jesus isn't telling us to be simpletons, he's telling us, rather plainly, now that I can see it (scales falling from the eyes), that we must accept and act like we have a (the) Father.

You may have seen the "dancing bear" video, a short film of a group of people running in circles, passing around a basketball. Especially when told to count how many times the ball has been passed between them, viewers fail to see that amidst the shuffle, a moon-breaking bear dances right through the group. Called "confirmation bias," we tend to see what we assume. I do it all the time.

It is not necessarily harmful, and, in fact, can lead to great insight, such as that of Columbus who saw only an earth that was 8,000 miles around. Had he opened his mind to, say, Eratosthenes, who in 240 BC measured it to near perfect accuracy,<ref>Earth's circumference - Wikipedia "an error on the real value between −2.4% and +0.8%"</ref> he never would have sailed west from Spain.<ref>At the time, the "Atlantic" and "Pacific" oceans were thought of as a single "Ocean." </ref> Great insight frequently follows biased vision.

On the other hand, confirmation bias is the stuff of Satan. It keeps us apart. It leads to conflict. It shields us from truth. Not to excuse them, but, as it were, the pharisees were counting blemished sheep and entirely missed the dancing God. As "poor banished children of Eve" with limited reason, our [[Sin|three-fold concupiscence]] drives our biases: ''what our flesh desires, what we jealously see around us, and what we think we are over others.'' When any of those tendencies toward sin feel threatened, they lash us, bind us, take us where ought not to go, knowingly or not.

Sadly, we usually know better. So we get around the "cognitive dissonance" of doing wrong while knowing right through rationalization. Either rationalized or through ignorance, we engage the worst form of confirmation bias when it completely binds us to an entrenched point of view. I use the word "bind" where "blind" would seem to fit. But if you think about it, "blind" can mean not being fooled by our eyes -- or flawed perceptions, which is why blind people develop and exercise perceptions that go unseen by the rest.<ref>All kinds of interesting places to wander with the miracles of healing the blind. As opposed to the ancient world's view that the blind are wise because they are not blinded by what they see -- such as the blind Greek poet Homer. Jesus inverts the paradigm and gives sight (faith) to the blind (unbelieving). One of my favorite scenes in the Bible is that of Paul being filled by the Holy Spirit, and "Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized" ([https://bible.usccb.org/bible/acts/9?18 Acts 9:18]).</ref> With or without sight, we see what we want to see, and all the learning and wisdom in the world is but a servant to our biases.  

The Archangel Michael first appeared to Saint Joan of Arc when she was thirteen -- no longer a child, but young, indeed. And at sixteen, when she announced her mission, she was certainly young enough to be dismissed by nearly all as mere delusional, annoying child. When the most magnificent Maiden, ''Jeanne la Pucelle'', as she called herself, came to head the French Army she was but seventeen -- legally, in our day, a child.

My edition of the [https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Recollections-Joan-Mark-Twain/dp/B09JRGC2W5/ Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc], begins with a fascinating observation from the great Hungarian revolutionary, Louis Kosuth, <blockquote>''Consider this unique and imposing distinction. Since the writing of human history began, Joan of Arc is the only person, of either sex, who has ever held supreme command of the military forces of a nation at the age of seventeen.''<ref>If asked the question I would have answered Alexander th Great, even knowing that Joan led the Army at age seventeen. I had to look up Alexanders age, and, indeed, he took the throne at age 20 and started his invasion of Asia at age 22.  Oh, and Joan had a horse given her by the Duke of Alencon, the King's brother, equal to Alexander's famed Bucephalus.</ref> </blockquote>As did Jesus, Joan confounded "the wise and the learned" -- anyone, that is, who felt in any way threatened by her, which included, especially the royal retinue clergy and the military leadership.  

Joan was calm, reasoned, logical and dogged, outwitting the witted, twisting their logic back upon themselves, and dodging their traps. Sound familiar?

The most famous of Jean's came from the theological trap asked at her heresy trial. From an English translation of the transcript,  <blockquote>On Saturday, February 24th, asked if she knows if she is in God’s grace, she answered: “If I am not, may God put me there, and if I am, may God so keep me."'''''<ref name=":0">p. 116, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.62531/page/n133/mode/2up?q=mortal+sin The Trial Of Teanner D Arc (1931) : Barrett,w P : Internet Archive]</ref>'''''  </blockquote>Her inquisitors had pursued this line of inquiry in order to trap her into admitting that she had gravely sinned, and as to if not why would she need to confess. As to that last, her answer is both clever and logically straightforward:<blockquote>Asked whether she need confess, since she believed by the revelation of her voices that she will be saved, she answers that she does not know of having committed mortal sin, but if she were in mortal sin, she thinks St. Catherine and St. Margaret would at once abandon her.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>Other retorts of equal mental acumen are reported by Twain.<ref>Twain exposes himself as an anti-Catholic protestant by ignoring Joan's most famous retort, that regarding Grace.  Oh well, just a little Lutheran misunderstanding there regarding [https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/5?11?1 Romans 5:1]:.  If you must, here's a fairly concise review of the problem with "solo fide": [https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-justification-ongoing Is Justification Ongoing? | Catholic Answers Magazine]</ref> One is of an exchange with the Minister of State, La Tremouille, who argued against Joan's insistence that the initial victory at Orleans be followed up lest the English regroup. La Tremouille, angry that she was essentially ordering him around in front of the Court, accused her of discussing matters of state in public, a grave offense:  <blockquote>Joan said, placidly —   

"I am the King's chief minister, and yet you had the impression that matters connected with my department are not matters of state ? Pray how is that ?"   

" Because there is no state." " No state!" "No, sir, there is no state, and no use for a minister. France is shrunk to a couple of acres of ground ; a sheriff's constable could take care of it ; its affairs are not matters of state. The term is too large."<ref>From the first edition, 1895, p. 892; [https://archive.org/details/personalrecollec00twai/page/892/mode/2up Personal recollections of Joan of Arc : Twain, Mark, 1835-1910 : Internet Archive] Note: the page numbers are from the serial publication in Harper's magazine, so do not correspond to  later book editions.</ref> </blockquote>Another comes earlier, during the initial investigation into her ordered by the Dauphin (Joan refused to call him King of France until he had been crowned at Rheims, which completed her mission). A "sly Dominican," Twain writes, tested the logic that she needed an army to do God's will.  <blockquote>Then answer me this. If He has willed to deliver France, and is able to do whatsoever He wills, where is the need for men-at-arms?" .... But Joan was not disturbed. There was no note of disquiet in her voice when she answered:

"He helps who help themselves. The sons of France will fight the battles, but He will give the victory!"<ref>p. 458, [https://archive.org/details/personalrecollec00twai/page/458/mode/2up?view=theater Personal recollections of Joan of Arc : Twain, Mark, 1835-1910 : Internet Archive]  </ref> </blockquote>The Bishop, in Twain's account, mutters,  <blockquote>"By God, the child has said true. He willed that Goliath should be slain, and He sent a child like this to do it!" </blockquote>The Bishop was amazed not at her childlike argument, but that the argument came from a child -- and as with David, a child would save the nation (!).  

It boggles the mind -- pushes us past reason, so let's just be amazed, while learning what we can from Saint ''Jeanne la Pucelle.''

When Jesus revealed himself to the "childlike" he wasn't dumbing-down his divinity. He demands thought and reason of his followers, and then helps them to build a logic of faith (and thus chose St. Paul to argue it!). But, ''verily, verily'', as he might say, reason has its limits, and it is by the Grace of the Father that Jesus reveals himself to those willing to look beyond the limits of their comprehension and simply believe.

I feel so much better now about Matthew 11. Indeed, I believe -- think? -- that in writing his post I have learned much while bolstering my faith. I pray so. So let us here flush out some meaning, so that we can more fully understand.  

The simplistic view says,  

Some, yes, but not really, and not in the context of having a (the) Father.  

Absolutely, to be childlike we must be dependent, obedient, submissive-- that's the entire point! -- to the Father. For without the Father, we live under the illusions of being:  

Now, wise, learned and childlike are not incompatible qualities. But Jesus doesn't care about that - whoever we are, whatever our intellect or station, he wants us to be '''HOLY'''. To be holy, we must believe, accept and obey the Father.

 

 

Let's review:  

* '''the persecuted'''

* '''hated for loving Christ'''

The Lord wants us to reason -- but with faith and not blind in faith. And he warns us against letting our intellect betray our faith. So with all the reason we can muster, Jesus wants us to approach the Father with simple, pure hearts and minds.

It's a conversation we carry on every day, especially every day, when we recite the prayer thaa Jesus taught us simpletons to say in recognition that we have a, the Father: