| || ||
Are God's Ways Fair? | Ralph Martin | An excerpt
Is Jesus Coming Soon? A Catholic Perspective on the Second Coming.
Today when the truth of judgment is spoken, certain questions and objections
are often posed. Let us briefly consider them here before concluding our
treatment of the topic.
Is God Fair in His Judgments?
"Modern man" protests that a God who would allow people to be damned is
unfair. Since God is love, many argue, the notions of punishment and hell
either be Old Testament leftovers or first-century cultural superstitions
that are not really part of the revelation of Scripture.
This line of reasoning has a number of problems. First, accepting the parts
of scriptural teaching that suit us and rejecting others is dangerous. If
the revelatory status of the New Testament's clear and repeated teaching
about hell and punishment is regarded as questionable, then its clear and
repeated teaching about God's love should be equally suspect. On what basis
do we accept or reject New Testament teaching? If we approach Scripture
on the basis of what modern man finds appealing or credible or fair
using his Judgments as the criteria we are, in effect, doing away
with Scripture as the word of God. This, of course, is what many have done.
As a result, some modern Scripture scholarship finds itself in the uncomfortable
position of picking and choosing what are "really" the reliable parts of
Scripture, but with no reliable criteria to guide the choice. It is far
better to determine the intention of the scriptural teaching, submit to
it, and form our own standards of judgments by it.
Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the proper way to approach Scripture
is to seek to be instructed and formed by the word of God, not to try to
instruct and form it according to modern prejudices. The rebellion of fallen
mankind against God is manifest, not just in the works of the fallen body,
but also in the works of the fallen mind. One of these works is to exalt
the understanding and mind of man over the understanding and mind of God
and to sit in judgment over what God has decreed and spoken. This, of course,
is nothing other than sin. The fact that this is a common way of approaching
God and his word today does not make it any less sinful.
While at college, I was impressed by a statement of the French existentialist
philosopher Camus: "I can't believe in a God who would allow innocent children
to suffer." Sentiments like this are common today. However, now that I more
clearly understand the fundamental situation of man before God, such a statement
strikes me as blasphemous not at all brave, courageous, or worthy
of admiration. For mankind to describe the kind of God he's willing to believe
in namely, one who would match his impoverished, limited notion of
Justice is the height of folly. It reveals a total incomprehension
of who God is and who man is. It assumes that man's "natural" understanding
of the universe, unilluminated by revelation from God, is adequate. The
truth is quite the opposite: man's understanding of reality is partial and
often twisted and perverted.
Man cannot form judgments about what is "fair" and "just" without a certain
spiritual framework. He must first acknowledge God's work in the person
and mission of Christ and understand the truths of redemption, the Lord's
coming, and the resurrection and judgment of mankind. Any other perspective
Scripture does not tell us all we would like to know; it tells us what we
need to know. What it already tells us, and what we need to know, is enough
to silence the most impassioned of human protest. Scripture reveals to us
the presence of God in our midst a mystery of such truth, love, and
Justice that only human silence and submission are appropriate. Would that
Camus had recognized this, as Job did:
"Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?
... Would you condemn me that you may be justified? . . ." Then Job
answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and
that no purpose of yours can be hindered. I have dealt with great things
that I do not understand; things too wonderful for me, which I cannot
know. I had heard of you by word of mouth, but now my eye has seen you.
Therefore I disown what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job
38:2; 40:8; 42:1-6).
Job perceived the greatness and majesty of God, his utter superiority to
men. With that perception, Job realized that he was in no position to demand
answers from God; the initiative lay with God, and his own part was to be
Job's example remains relevant for us today. God has told us everything
we need to know to be saved. When some of our questions go unanswered, we
do not "demand" answers. They remain the prerogative and initiative of God,
and our appropriate stance can only be a reverential silence. This is obviously
not to say that the theological task to seek greater understanding is not
important or fruitful but rather that, even in these important efforts at
faith seeking understanding, reverence before the greatness of the mystery
When we try to wrap the powers of our weak human minds around the immensity
of such realities as eternity, judgment, heaven and hell, justice and mercy,
we can receive only so much light. Having encountered God, our task is then
to acknowledge what we know to be true, even without knowing all that is
The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul;
The decree of the Lord is trustworthy,
giving wisdom to the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
The command of the Lord is clear,
enlightening the eye. (Ps 19:8-9)
Confronted with the reality of an unending hell,
our minds sometimes strain to ask: "If man can be damned, why did God
make us with a freedom that gave us such a capability?" The standard answer,
and a good one, is that he gave us freedom because he wanted to confer
immense dignity on us by creating us in his image. God gave us the freedom
to choose, to join him or not to join him, to accept his invitation or
to reject it even though our choice would have eternal consequences.
In this way, we will form a kingdom of free subjects who have chosen to
be with God, not beings who have been coerced into doing the right thing.
Abraham answered, "They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear
them." "No, Father Abraham", replied the rich man. "But if someone would
only go to them from the dead, then they would repent." Abraham said
to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will
not be convinced even if one should rise from the dead" (Lk 16:27-31).
At the same time, we must always add that if God created man as he did,
then it must have been the perfect way of going about it, the perfectly
right means of giving him freedom, the perfect risk to run, even at the
expense of rejection and damnation. His ways are perfect. He is God. He
is not only fair, he is the standard of fairness; he is not only love,
he is the standard of love; he is not only just, he is the standard of
justice. All his words will come to pass; all he wills is to be accomplished.
Is Man Truly Responsible for His Actions?
With the development of depth psychology, a tendency already present in
modern thought became predominant: namely, the belief that man is so much
a product of forces beyond his control that he is truly responsible for
his actions only in a rather minimal way. Man is seen as the product of
"economic laws of history", social and cultural forces, and drives and
desires of his own psyche, such as sex and hostility and the will to power.
These attitudes have even influenced God's people and have deeply affected
prevailing understandings of sin in the Church in recent years. Many moral
theologians have so restricted the possibility of freely choosing to do
serious wrong that serious sin and hell seem to be distant possibilities,
existing mainly in the realm of memories rather than among the present
truths that shape our lives and govern our actions. Large segments within
the Church today are taking a very permissive approach toward sin. Christians
are being led to believe that the objective standards of God, as contained
in the Scriptures and taught by the Christian Church across the centuries,
might not really be applicable in their own life situations or, if they
are applicable, that their violation would incur no blame. 
Scripture's view of man's responsibility for his
actions is quite different from that of thinkers influenced by modem Marxist,
behaviorist, and Freudian theories. In all of its relevant parts and in
its entirety, Scripture clearly holds that man is responsible before God
for his actions and that he will be judged accordingly. Scripture, without
denying their possible relevance, does not focus on determining the degree
to which mitigating circumstances (unfortunate childhood experiences,
poverty, and so on) or other people (parents, "society") may have contributed
to a person's wrong behavior, thereby lessening his guilt. Scripture quite
clearly shows that God expects man to obey the law he has placed within
him and the law he has revealed to him, availing himself of the help provided
in and through his Son and his body, the Christian people. Not to obey
God in a serious matter these are listed clearly in Scripture,
and we have already considered them puts one in danger of judgment.
Even when Scripture does consider what we might call mitigating circumstances,
it does not give modern man much comfort: ignorance of God's will does
not eliminate punishment, even though it may lessen it. "The slave who
knew his master's wishes but did not prepare to fulfill them will get
a severe beating, whereas the one who did not know them and who nonetheless
deserved to be flogged will get off with fewer stripes. More will be asked
of a man to whom more has been entrusted" (Lk 12:47-48).
How God may judge a particular case of allegedly "mitigating circumstances"
is not our place to say, just as it is not ours to determine who will
be damned and who will be saved. God makes the judgments. At the same
time, a Christian teacher would be extremely remiss in his duty if he
did not clearly state the overall picture given in Scripture: God holds
man responsible for his actions, and the prospect of damnation for those
who violate his commands is very real.
Have They Really Heard the Gospel?
Since Scripture insists that men who hear the gospel and reject it are
liable to damnation, various questions have been raised concerning the
manner in which the gospel is presented. What constitutes an effective
communication of the gospel? When can we say that someone has truly heard
it? Sometimes this question is raised in an honest concern for effective
evangelism. Other times it stems from the repugnance of modern man regarding
clear scriptural statements about the consequences of rejecting the gospel
and from his desire to rule out the possibility that he could be punished.
Is there anything in Scripture that can throw light on this question?
Two passages can help us here. The first is in the Letter to the Romans,
where Paul is considering what in the preaching of the gospel brings people
to faith. In the course of Paul's teaching, he asks whether the Jews of
his and Jesus' generation have truly heard the gospel, given the fact
that most of them apparently rejected it. His answer is unequivocal: "Certainly
they have heard."
I ask you, have they not heard? Certainly they have, for "their voice
has sounded over the whole earth, and their words to the limits of the
world." I put the question again, did Israel really not understand? First
of all, Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not even
a nation; with a senseless nation I will make you angry." Then Isaiah
says boldly, "I was found by those who were not seeking me; to those who
were not looking for me I revealed myself" But of Israel he says, "All
day long I stretched out my hand to an unbelieving and contentious people"
Paul obviously thinks the word has been adequately proclaimed to the Jews
as a whole, who were at the time dispersed throughout the known world.
He considers their rejection of it as yet another outbreak of the kind
of unbelief and contentiousness that God severely punished and judged
morally culpable in the Old Testament. It is not a question of their not
having heard or understood.
Of course, this example does not immediately put us in a position to judge
whether someone has really heard and understood the gospel in a given
situation. But it should put us on guard against assuming too quickly
that the presentation of the message of salvation is deficient. The massive
rejection of Jesus by the Jews of his day and Paul's stands as sobering
evidence that even masses of people can both hear and understand the gospel
and yet reject it, to their own condemnation.
For our part we should make every effort to present the gospel adequately
and not remain content with unnecessarily offensive or deficient presentations.
We should, of course, make every effort to ensure that our lives, actions,
and relationships reflect the truth of the gospel well. But we should
not delude ourselves into thinking that we need an advanced academic degree
in communications to communicate the gospel adequately; nor do our lives
have to be perfectly transformed before others can truly hear and understand.
The awe-inspiring truth is that people and large numbers of them
can both hear and understand and yet reject.
Another passage that throws light on this question is the ending of the
story of Dives and Lazarus. Dives finally pleads that Lazarus be allowed
to go to the rich man's brothers to prevent their ending up in hell:
Having a clear grasp on the sobering reality that men can both hear and
understand, yet reject, is imperative if we are to conduct ourselves properly
as individuals and as a Christian Church in the modern world. If we fail
to face up to the genuine anti-Christian, anti-Church, anti-God hostility
that is at the root of many of the most "progressive" modern trends and
developments, we run the risk of taking a sentimental, foolish approach
to them. One Catholic historian pointed out that many Christians find it
impossible to recognize the depth and strength of anti-Christian feeling
in the Western world, and they console themselves that where it does exist,
it is based upon disappointment with Christians who do not live up to their
beliefs. In fact, however, the Church is hated not primarily because her
members fall short of her teachings but precisely because she insists on
being what she is supposed to be. She speaks of God, of eternity, or right
and wrong. It is the Church's fidelities that are despised, not her infidelities.
Will Many Be Lost?
In trying to grasp and interpret properly what Scripture tells us about
the reality of judgment, we may naturally wonder about the relative proportions
of the saved to the damned. Sometimes we ask the question in order to determine
how seriously to take the word of God and how much effort to expend in keeping
and following it. Scripture's answer is sobering: We must take God's word
very seriously and keep and follow it very closely, for "the invited are
many, the elect are few" (Mt 22:14). Compared to the number who are invited
into the kingdom all men relatively few accept the invitation.
About this Jesus explicitly warns:
Enter through the narrow gate. The gate that leads to damnation
is wide, the road is clear, and many choose to travel it. But how narrow
is the gate that leads to life, how rough the road, and how few there
are who find it! (Mt 27:13-14).
Scripture indicates a final difficulty: the mass apostasy that will occur
at the culmination of history in the events leading up to Jesus' return
(2 Th 2:3). "Because of the increase of evil, the love of most will grow
cold", and only "the man who holds out to the end ... will see salvation"
(Mt 24:12-13). Peter says:
The season of judgment has begun, and begun with God's own household.
If it begins this way with us, what must be the end for those who refuse
obedience to the gospel of God? And if the just man is saved only with
difficulty, what is to become of the godless and the sinner? (1 Pet
Scripture indicates that one does not enter the kingdom by drifting along
with the prevailing culture or by doing what most men do. Christians need
to break with what most men do and how most men live and think. We must
choose to submit to Christ and live as members of his body, the Church,
evaluating and understanding all of reality with the mind of Christ, in
the light of eternity.
C. S. Lewis expressed the importance of living our lives with an "eternal
perspective" quite strikingly:
It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and
goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person
you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you
would be tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such
as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are,
in some degree, helping each other to one or the other of these destinations.
 This situation has led one distinguished Christian philosopher to write
an article entitled "Do Moral Theologians Corrupt Youth?", answering his
question in the affirmative. (Ralph McInerny, "Do Moral Theologians Corrupt
Youth?" [New Covenant, November 1979, 4-7.])
 C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1965), 14-15.
Ralph Martin, a leader in renewal movements
for thirty years, is the head of Renewal Ministries, Ann Arbor Michigan.
He is the author of a number of books including The
Catholic Church at the End of an Age and Called
If you'd like to receive the FREE IgnatiusInsight.com e-letter (about
every 2 to 3 weeks), which includes regular updates about IgnatiusInsight.com
articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances,
please click here to sign-up today!
| || || |