Can
God see me when I go to the bathroom?
(and other tough questions kids ask) By Alex Garcia-Rivera. This article
originally appeared in the May 1999 U.S. Catholic
Some time ago, I was asked to meet with the catechism class
of St. Leander's Parish located in San Leandro, California. Like so
many parishes today, St. Leander's catechism classes fill a growing
void in Christian education between infant Baptism and teenage Confirmation.
If it were not for these catechism classes, many Catholic children
might never know the substance and meaning of their Baptism. The frontline
troops in this necessary ministry of Christian education are brave
and generous men and women who rise to the challenge of our Lord's
call: "The harvest is plenty but few are the laborers."
It is an exceedingly daunting call. Children, as we shall see, have
a knack for asking the most profound and perplexing theological questions
in deceptively simple terms. Perhaps this is so because, in their
innocence, as Jesus said, they are close to the kingdom of heaven.
This turned out to be my experience with the Hispanic children of
St. Leander's catechism classes. I came at the request of Senora Juanita
Loza, our voluntary directory of Christian education. In the capacity
of a professional theologian, I was asked to answer pressing questions
the children might have about God. I also came expecting some rather
routine questions that could be answered right out of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. I should have known better! On the shoulders
of religious educators lies the major burden of transmitting the Catholic
tradition in a fresh yet convincing manner. Moved by this realization,
I felt compelled to take three of these questions children ask about
God and give some indication of their complexity and a possible response.
This article is for these brave and generous souls, who out of love
for our children and the future of the church have dared to take on
the challenges of Christian education.
How
did God make the trees?
I
wish God had left plans that showed us how the trees were made. But
that is not God's way. God doesn't need plans to create trees or anything
else for that matter. I cannot tell you exactly how God made the trees.
Scientists are still trying to figure that out. I'm not sure they
will ever know all the details, but what scientists do know is that
God didn't use plans to make the trees.
One
thing we do know for certain: trees are marvelously made. More important,
they were made to be beautiful. Even people who do not believe in
God will tell you this. We, however, who believe in God can say something
more. We can say that God made the trees through the power of love.
It is God's love that made the trees. It is God's love that imagined
the roots and the trunk and the branches and made them be. It is God's
love that imagined the leaves and the flowers and made them be.
We
who believe in God see in the beauty of the trees something of what
God had in mind when God made them. We see a love that loves to share.
Trees were made to give shade and coolness on hot summer days. Trees
were made to give flowers that make nectar so birds and insects not
only have food to eat but they can delight in their feeding. Trees
were made to give fruit so that animals and girls and boys could eat,
and, like the birds and insects, not only eat but also delight in
the eating. But, most of all, trees were made to be loved so that
we too would learn to love as God loves. How did God make the trees?
Lovingly.
How
did God make the trees? This question deceives in its innocent simplicity.
We could answer it by simply saying: "God just said, 'Let there
be trees,' and there they were." This answer, of course, refers
directly to the biblical account in Genesis. It gives a faithful but
literal account of how God made trees. But is this a satisfying answer?
Is there a certain challenge in this question that a literal account
cannot answer? I believe so. Wrapped up and tangled together in this
question lies the question of God's omnipotence, or, more specifically,
the nature of God's power. Here lies, I believe, the actual significance
of this child's question.
Perhaps
in no other time in history has the power of God been so defiantly
denied or questioned as in the present day. I am not speaking of atheism.
The greatest questioning of God's omnipotence comes from those who
believe profoundly in God. Such questioning emerges from various sources.
Those who learn of the stark darkness of Auschwitz' human Holocaust
question God's power. Those who come to understand the implications
of the fatal brilliance of Hiroshima's nuclear holocaust question
God's power. Those who are dazzled by the magic of modern technology
question God's power. Those who have been taught in our schools the
contingency and seeming arbitrariness of human knowledge question
God's power.
These
and many other sources of questioning God's power reveal the challenge
in the question: How did God make the trees? The child who asks this
question is the same one who is asked to believe in the transcendent
power of God yet also inherits the burden of the human and nuclear
holocaust, the arrogant acids of modern technological achievement,
and the contemporary lack of confidence in the existence of truth,
goodness, or beauty.
To
meet the challenge, we must recognize that at its heart lies an ancient
debate over the nature of God's power. The debate began with a seemingly
innocent question. Can God create a world different from the present
one? It was a question designed to probe our understanding of
God's absolute power. If God can do whatever God wants, then God,
of course, can create a different world from the present.
But
if we affirm this obvious conclusion, another question is raised.
Why did God create this world and not another? In other words,
God can create any number of possible worlds, but God chose to create
this world. Because of this choosing, God's power appears to have
limits. It appears that God must choose. What kind of a God, then,
do we have, who, possessing absolute power, deliberately limits it
by using it to create this particular creation?
The
ancient theologians attempted to solve this theological conundrum
by making the distinction between God's absolute power (potentia
Dei absoluta) and God's ordained power (potentia Dei ordinata).
The fact of this world and not another belongs properly to God's ordaining
power--that is, the power to design and order reality as God sees
fit. The conviction, on the other hand, that God can make a different
world belongs to God's absolute power--that is, the power to make
things be or not be. With this distinction, theologians appeared to
have solved the problem of trying to understand the nature of an absolutely
powerful God who creates a rather limited and particular universe.
God's
power, then, must be understood in two ways. As absolute, God's power
answers Hamlet's question, To be or not to be? As ordaining,
God's power answers a very different question, Why this world?
Our child's question now reveals its challenge. In our day, the question
concerning God's absolute power--namely, To be or not to be?--has
taken center stage. A world become cynical and self-destructive asks,
Why life is worth living? Indeed, it is the only question that
adults in our day appear to be able to ask. Thus, we should be surprised
at our child's question. Only an innocent child could ask the other
question of God's power for the particular, the power to make the
trees.
The
child's question reminds the theologian that To be or not to be?
cannot be answered effectively without also answering How did God
make the trees? The reason this question of God's power is so
hard to ask in a self-destructive world is that its answer can only
be given in terms of God's love. God's ordaining power is God's loving
power. God made this world because God loved this world
and not another. God's love, however, is also the answer to God's
absolute power. God loved this world into being.
Thus,
the question of God's ordaining power holds the key to understanding
God's absolute power. God's love and power are inextricably united.
Now
the reason a child must ask about God's ordaining power becomes clear.
God's love, indeed, the question of love itself, escapes the attention
of a cynical and selfish world. Only one who has yet to be infected
by the arrogant attitude of our modern world must raise it. It must
be asked by one who can still, in innocent wonder, ask, How did
God make the trees? And so, with this brief sketch of the theological
issues raised by the simple question raised in Juanita Loza's catechism
class, we can now attempt an answer for the child.
Can
God see me when I go to the bathroom?
Yes,
God can see you when you are in the bathroom--but as your own mother
sees you. Just as your mother, as the one who gave you life, sees
you, so God sees you. Just as your mother as the one who carried you
for nine months, whose body gave the raw materials for you to be knit
into being, who gave milk from her own body for you to drink, who
changed your diapers so you wouldn't have a rash--just as she sees
you, so God sees you. More important, God sees you as your mother
sees you when she gave you birth. God sees you as your mother sees
you after suffering incredible pain to give you life. God also sees
you as your mother sees you right after birth holding you in her arms,
the pain of birth now forgotten and only love filling her heart.
God,
however, sees even further than your mother does-- deep, deep down
into your very soul. And what God sees, God likes very, very much
because God always finds something very, very good. For there, deeper
than you can imagine, lies the very image of God. Yes, God is closer
to you than you are to yourself. Sometimes, however, God finds that
beautiful image blurred. Sometimes, when God looks deep into your
soul, God sees someone who has loved something less worthy than God--someone
who could have loved God with all his or her heart, yet chose to love
something less. God, however, can change what God doesn't like. God,
like your mother who changed your diapers when they got dirty, can
change a troubled soul, but only if you allow yourself to be changed.
Yes, God can see you in the bathroom, but God sees you there from
the inside out.
If
God is everywhere, can God see me when I go to the bathroom?
The
question took me aback. I felt transported to another time. I could
hear William Ockham loudly disagreeing with Saint Thomas Aquinas'
description of one of God's attributes, omnipresence. Then, as now,
the attribute of God's omnipresence raises the issue of how one speaks
of God. If God is present everywhere, then can one also say God is
present here in this particular place, this room, this bathroom?
To
simply say, yes, of course, misses the nature of the theological tension
involved in the question. It is God's transcendence that allows
us to say that God is omnipresent. It is God's immanence, however,
that urges us to say that God is present in this particular
place. God's transcendence tells us God cannot be part of the world.
God's immanence tells us God is active in the world. Faith
affirms both of these conclusions even though they are based on two
totally different and seemingly contradictory aspects of God. How
can God both transcend the world yet be present in it?
Ockham
and Aquinas notwithstanding, the dilemma over God's transcendence
versus God's immanence increases when another point is raised. The
child's question about being "seen" in the bathroom has
another dimension. It is embarrassing to have someone watching you
in the bathroom. Being embarrassed by our nakedness has strong theological
overtones. Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness when they
sinned. God, taking pity on them, made them clothes. To be embarrassed
by our nakedness before the sight of God (and each other) is a spiritual
instinct of the need for mercy and forgiveness.
At
the heart of this child's question may lie a deeper one: What does
God think of me if God sees everything I do? For if God can see everything,
then God can see not only the good things that I do but also the bad.
Indeed, the core of this question is the instinctive sense of a spiritual
struggle present within every human creature as articulated in Paul's
Letter to the Romans:
The
good thing I want to do, I never do; the evil thing which I do not
want--that is what I do. But every time I do what I do not want
to, then it is not myself acting, but the sin that lives in me.
So I find this rule: that for me, where I want to do nothing but
good, evil is close at my side. In my inmost self I dearly love
God's law, but I see that acting on my body there is a different
law which battles against the law in my mind (Rom. 7: 19-23, New
Jerusalem Bible).
This
spiritual struggle is different and unique for every human being and
can only be acknowledge in the very intimacy of our soul. It is that
deep intimacy that the Bible refers to as Adam and Eve's "nakedness,"
and it is the nature of that deep intimacy, I believe, that lies at
the heart of the child's question.
The
question of God's deep intimacy with us, fortunately, allows a profound
yet child-satisfying answer. If the question of God's omnipresence
becomes a question of God's intimacy, then Saint Augustine has a wonderful
answer for us: intimior intrmo meo ("God is closer to me than
I am to myself").
What
is nakedness before the eyes of the One who lovingly fashioned us
into being? It is here where an answer to a child (or adult) may be
crafted. One can say the nature of God's intimacy may be compared
to the intimacy of a child to his or her mother. And that is how to
begin to answer the child's question.
How
big is God?
I
wish I had brought a ruler big enough to show you how big God is,
but, in a sense, you already have such a ruler. It is inside your
heart. Your heart is the ruler by which you can measure how big God
is, I know what you're thinking. How can my heart measure how big
God is? My heart has no markings for inches or feet. And I have to
agree with you. The heart is no ordinary ruler. It is, however, a
very special ruler. It can measure that which cannot be measured.
How does one measure what cannot be measured? There is a simple way.
First you have to see what you want to measure, then when you try
to measure it, you find out that you can't Your heart is good at that.
Your heart tries to measure God all the time, and more often than
not, it finds that it can't. That is why when we ask one question
about God it leads to another question. This is your heart trying
to measure God. If we would let your heart ask as many questions about
God as it wants, there would be no container on earth that could hold
them all. Yet, you see, your heart wants to ask the questions. This
means your heart can "see" God there inside and wants to
know more. Otherwise, your heart would stop asking questions. This
doesn't mean we're struck only with asking questions. God, above all,
wants us to know and love him. You have, for example, already learned
something. God is bigger than our hearts can measure. Only very wise
people know this. By knowing this you, too, have become wise. To be
wise is to know that one can learn more from our questions about God
than by our answers. Every time your heart asks a question, you have
learned something new. How big is God? As big as your questions.
How big is God? I almost passed over this question until I saw a book
at the Graduate Theological Union bookstore entitled How Large Is
God? This book presents nine essays given by a variety of scholars,
theologians, and scientists on the nature of the dimensions proper
to God. For the scientists, the question over the "bigness"
of God concerns the relationship between science and religion. Science,
after all, depends on measurement, but how can one measure God? For
scholars the question concerns the issue between the free pursuit
of knowledge and the limits to such pursuit imposed by sacred authorities.
Scholars may be open to talk about God but are suspicious of any (seemingly)
arbitrary authority such as scripture or the church's magisterium.
For theologians, the question concerns theology itself as a discipline
that can grow in knowledge even while asserting that the reality that
is God shatters any human conceptions. Theologians believe so that
they may understand, but the scholarly world defines a discipline
as understanding so that one may believe. As you can see, How big
is God? is no trivial question. But how does the question concern
a child? What issues are raised when an 8-year-old asks it? At heart
I believe the issues raised by the 8-year-old are very close but not
exactly the same as the issues raised in the professional essays.
Here the common theme concerns the nature of truth. The child in my
opinion seeks a further question: Can one, in this day and age, believe
in truth itself? When a child asks, How big is God?, he or she asks,
in a sense, what exactly do we know about God? Or what is the truth
of God? It is a question that originates in an innocent belief in
the reality of truth. Only one who believes in truth can ask, How
big is God? Yet today our children face a new (actually, very old)
skepticism. Such skepticism does not have to do with a lack of belief
in God but the loss of belief in truth. Few young adults, for example,
believe there is such a thing as truth itself. The line between the
reality within the TV or computer screen and the reality outside has
become decidedly blurred. Thus, while the nature of truth lies at
the heart of the discussion between theologians, scientists, and scholars,
an answer to the child must be in the context of today's skepticism
about the reality of truth. Augustine saw clearly that if belief in
truth falls by the wayside, so does belief itself. In other words,
Christian belief, at least as Roman Catholics understand it, is closely
tied to understanding. Augustine never tired of quoting from scripture,
"Unless you believe, you will not understand" (Isa. 7:9).
Thus, we do not merely believe in God. Such "blind" faith
is alien to authentic Christian belief. God, after all, wants us to
know and love God. Our belief in God founds our understanding of God.
Although belief and understanding and faith and reason are distinct
from one another, they are deeply connected. If atheism attacks the
foundations of belief, then skepticism attacks the foundations of
understanding. In either case, if either belief or understanding is
compromised, then the other is as well. Thus, one must, in the face
of today's skepticism, craft an answer to the seemingly simple question,
How big is God?, with an eye to helping the child come to a deeper
understanding and appreciation of truth itself and the relationship
of truth to a belief in God.
Perhaps
Augustine's own approach might prove helpful. Augustine, in his books
The Master and The Trinity, developed a Christian understanding
of the profound Socratic dictum: know thyself. "Know thyself"
encouraged one seeking truth to come to the seemingly skeptical conclusion:
"I now know that I do not know anything." Yet this is the
conclusion that a true believer in truth must come to! For, as Socrates
knew, our knowledge of things is constantly changing, but truth itself
is eternal and unchanging.
Socrates
saw that truth leads not so much to knowing facts (scientia) but to
becoming wise (sapientia). Knowing a fact does not change a
person--becoming wise does. Knowing a fact can be a cold-blooded act
of investigation; becoming wise involves conversion of the self. Such
conversion involves the recognition of truth's elusive reality, a
humbling of reason before the eternal. Reason so humbled recognizes
the need to believe in truth and the hope that one can know the truth.
Such
hope, however, can only come if one truly believes that such truth
exists. Thus, it is this belief in truth itself that makes the difference
between a wise man or woman and simply a man or woman who knows facts.
The essence of scientific gathering of facts is doubt. The essence
of wisdom is belief.
No
wonder, then, that a Christian thinker such as Augustine saw in the
Socratic call to know thyself Christ's own reference to himself in
the Gospel of John, "I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life"
(John 14:6). The restlessness of our hearts is the elusiveness of
eternal and divine truth. When we look deep inside our hearts, we
find, Augustine would say, someone independent of the self. Such independent
reality resists misrepresentation. Our restlessness, our struggle
to understand the self, is a witness to the divine reality of truth.
Thus,
Augustine would rather lead the skeptic to the interior dimension
of the self than to the exterior dimension of nature to convince him
or her of the reality of truth. Such an approach to the child's question,
I believe, can and ought to be made so that the child's belief in
truth is strengthened, even as the answer comes down to one of belief.