Category: Christian Living

Posted on

A Theology of Simplicity, Part 1

Editor’s Note: This is an introduction to the topic of simplicity. Simplicity has generally been known to those of the religious left persuasion (Ron Sider, Richard Foster), since they feel that simplicity goes hand in hand with their socialist agendas. Though strongly disagreeing with the economic and social implications of Sider and Foster, yet, I have found some of their thoughts to be helpful in this area (particularly Foster’s: Freedom of Simplicity). My goal here is to reclaim simplicity as a universal Christian mandate. However, my attempt to explain simplicity may differ with various expositions of it in the past years. This is only meant as a Sunday School introduction. It was delivered at New Life Presbyterian on November 11th.

There are many simple questions to consider when thinking about the topic of simplicity in the Christian life. But what may appear to be simple, may however, turn out to be a simplistic attempt to simplify the theology of simplicity. If simplicity is as simple as some simple-minded people say it is, they why aren’t there more simple people roaming around the church. Why do people live such complicated lives? Why is the Christian life so hectic and so filled with un-simplistic answers to life’s great dilemmas?

This is what I will try to tackle in the next 30 minutes or so and then open the floor to some of your insights. As a brief observation, when I speak of simplicity of Christian living, I am not speaking about the idea of simple-mindedness which Proverbs so often rebukes. Rather, simplicity is living in the sight of God in wisdom and in understanding.

Many of you here come from backgrounds where life was summarized in three words: eat, sleep and procreate. Sure, there was work, but work was only a sub-category under one of the three. Others here come from backgrounds where your parents had to work so hard to feed you, that there was never a time when you remember sitting with your family for dinner. There was no moment to pause and think about family life; there were other priorities.

Before we continue with this brief discourse, let me give you my definition of “simplicity.”

Simplicity is the ability to work and worship without exhaustion[1] or legalism.

By work, I refer to our daily jobs as businessman, lawyers, truck drivers, home-schooling moms, etc. and by worship; I refer to Sabbath worship, weekly meditation, nurturing our children in the law of the Lord and in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am suggesting that there is something wrong with our work ethic if it leads us to constant exhaustion or being burnt out and that there is something wrong with our worship if it leads to legalism.the-simple-life.jpg

First, let me try to develop a little context to the discussion of simplicity. There are some fundamental questions that need to be answered before we can venture into a proper perspective on simplicity. This is what simplicity is NOT:

a) Simplicity is not abandoning the world or embracing the doctrine of “escapism.” The world is getting worse, so why not just move to the mountains. To live a simple life does not mean that we remove ourselves from society and politics and stop paying our taxes. We still have a dominion mandate that has never been abrogated.

b) Simplicity of life does not mean opposition to capitalism. We believe that “money” is the cause of all sorts of evil and that it is not evil in and of itself. Think of the benefits of rich Christians in donating to start hospitals, churches, helping the poor, etc. So our society needs wealthy Christians to uphold it. We need hard working Christians who know their role in God’s kingdom.

c) Simplicity does not mean a rejection of technology. Technology has served to produce radio stations in third world countries where the gospel can be heard, produce transportation, help communication between friends and family, etc. Continue reading “A Theology of Simplicity, Part 1”

Posted on

Vos, Misconceptions, and Legalism

Those who have survived the fury of legalism,1 understand its deadly claim on individuals. After many years under legalistic teaching one begins to realize that the overwhelming nature of duty can never be alleviated or diminished by/through the nature of grace. Legalism, as a particular adherence to a code, may in a powerful sense be Screwtape’s tool to entrap the young and vigor-filled Christian.

No one living in a monarchy will deny obedience to his new king, especially if disobedience means death. Nevertheless, the reality is in the nature of this obedience. What is obedience? Further, why is legalism so detrimental in light of the clear commands of the ever-relevant law-word of God? It is answering the second question that one finds some clue into the first. My assumption, unlike so many, is that the Old Testament revelation bears both ethical and salvific ramifications for the New Covenant Christian. The central problem in understanding these sorts of questions is that the idea of “legalism” has been so injuriously associated with the Old Covenant laws and demands. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in the Old Testament where the Orthodoxical Shema is first given; it is in the pages of the Old (er) Testament where the command to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is made first explicit; and it is in the Old Testament where the grace of God is pervasive in the lives of the saints despite their many eggeregious sins. Hence, my contention is that if any case law, ceremonial or moral law is to be interpreted, it is to be interpreted in the context of grace; totus gratia.

The Reformed heritage and its current manifestation have not carefully sorted through such nuances. Sonship theology has exercised little time in considering the Old Testament demands of obedience for fear that it may make modern Christians “legalists.” The fact is modern Christian are miles away from the dreaded, and, rightly so, despised idea of legalism. Modermn Christians are too pagan to even become legalists. Let me note, lest it be misunderstood, that legalism is not in any sense equivalent to obedience to Old Testament law. It is rather the opposite of faithfulness to God’s law, since legalism makes God’s revelation irrelevant and substitutes it with man’s code or standard. Any time autonomous man makes laws and regulations outside of Biblical imperative he has become a legalist. Hence, legalism is obeying laws that find no Biblical grounds;2 and as a result, using that pseudo obedience to attain something that they cannot earn.

Legalism and faithfulness to covenant demands are diametrically opposed. In popular discourse, the two ideas have been used interchangeably when in reality they do not belong in the same sentence, except to explain their great contrast. Micah 6:8 tells us:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

If to do these things is being understood as legalism, then I want all of it. But far from legalism this is God’s command to His covenant children of all ages. Fidelity and faithfuless to the covenant demands express loyalty; a loyalty that is grounded on grace from beginning to end. The problem with evangelicalism is anti-nomianism. After all, when was the last time you heard a pastor castigating his parishioners for doing too much for God’s kingdom? The opposite is true; parishioners are castigated for being too detached from their Christianity.

On the other hand, (In stark contrast to Sonship theology) the Reformed faith has also been castigated for its Puritan heritage, which some have labeled as legalistic.3 Geerhardus Vos summarizes the criticism:

A consciousness of strict accountability in view of God’s sovereign rights over man has always characterized the Reformed religion, even to such extent as to invite the charge that its puritanic practice savors of a spirit of legalism more at home in the Old Testament than in the New.4

Later Vos defines legalism as those who “obey but do not adore.” Two comments will suffice at this point and the first one is that there ought not to be any distinction between the ethical demands of the Old and New Testaments. If we are aware of the nature of the sacrificial system, then the Christo-centric implications and the ethical implications will leave no doubt that Christ in no sense ever eliminated or abolished the Old Testament obligations for the New Testament believer. Such distinctions are dangerously Marcionite. The second observation is that Vos’ definition is in some sense flawed if one should observe that the very nature of Old Testament law is doxological. You cannot claim to obey the law (first commandment) and yet not adore Jehovah alone.

As a final point, obedience, true obedience, stems from an inward response. It is gratitude to God’s grace, but it is also loyalty to God’s kingship over our lives. In the end, legalism offers death, but God’s laws offer life and to obey Him is the Christian’s delight.

Footnotes

  1. For instance, in the case of Renee Altson in her book: Stumbling Toward Faith [↩ back]
  2. Fundamentalists here can list a vast selection of do’s and dont’s. [↩ back]
  3. One may be aware of the idea of something being Puritanical to indicate it is too strict or tedious [↩ back]
  4. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, pg. 232 [↩ back]
Posted on

Matthew 6:6 and Private Prayers

My pastor has started a series through the Lord’s Prayer. In his introductory sermon he stressed two aspects of the text:
a) Prayer is expected, not optional.
b) Prayer should be genuine.
These are clear implications in the text. Prayer becomes a necessary dimension of spiritual growth. In the words of Dean Richard Lobs, “it is the most unnatural thing we will ever do in this world.” In Psalm 50:21 we find that God lacks nothing. This entails that we depend on every element of life to come from His sovereign providence.
In verse 6 we read:

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

This is a strange element indeed. Here in this text God makes a direct contrast with the hypocrites. This should not be seen as a proof-text for individualism. Rather, the contrast here is with the self-exalting prayer of the hypocrites. If one were to imitate the Pharisees, he would fall into the same sin, even he did not intend to do so. The Puritan Matthew Henry expounds:

Instead of praying in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, enter into thy closet, into some place of privacy and retirement. Isaac went into the field (Gen. 24:63), Christ to a mountain, Peter to a housetop. No place amiss in point of ceremony, if it do but answer the end. Note, Secret prayer is to be performed in retirement, that we may be unobserved, and so may avoid ostentation; undisturbed, and so may avoid distraction; unheard, and so may use greater freedom.

My particular practice has been to find a Catholic or Anglican church in the area. There is always an open chapel. That may be a perfect place to pray in secret, furthermore, far away from the paragons of self-exaltation. For this one thing I know, no hypocrite or Pharisee will look for a generally empty chapel to pray.

Posted on

Heidelberg Catechism

103.   Q.  What does God require in the fourth commandment?
 
A.  First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained1 and that, especially on the day of rest, I diligently attend the church of God2 to hear God’s Word,3 to use the sacraments,4 to call publicly upon the LORD,5 and to give Christian offerings for the poor.6 Second, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, let the LORD work in me through His Holy Spirit, and so begin in this life the eternal sabbath.71 Deut 6:4-9; 20-25; 1 Cor 9:13, 14; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:13-17; Tit 1:5. 2 Deut 12:5-12; Ps 40:9, 10; 68:26; Acts 2:42-47; Heb 10:23-25. 3 Rom 10:14-17; 1 Cor 14:26-33; 1 Tim 4:13. 4 1 Cor 11:23, 24. 5 Col 3:16; 1 Tim 2:1. 6 Ps 50:14; 1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 8 and 9. 7 Is 66:23; Heb 4:9-11.
Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part XIII, Lewis and Charity

Lewis’ discussion on charity is captivating and simple. It is in essence the summary of the law. Love is that great attribute of God that spurs us to love others and to obey God. This point is worth stressing. Love is never meant to be set in contrast to obedience. Love as John Murray once wrote is “feeling that impels to action… if it does not impel to the fulfillment of the law, it is not the love of which the Scriptures her speak.”[1]If ever charity leads to disobedience, then it has betrayed its Biblical purpose.

Love impels to action, but to be overly introspective about whether we love is unnecessary. Since all our thoughts and actions will be in some way marred with our corrupt natures, the remedy to love is to love. As Lewis writes:

Do not waste time bothering whether you “love” your neighbour, act as if you did.[2]

This is similar to the gospel account of the father who asked two sons to accomplish a certain task. One said he would, but did not. The other said he would not, but he did. Who in the end fulfilled the command to love? The one who did. Whether his initial response was erroneous, that is beside the point. The actual proof of love is that he did do it.

When husbands wonder if they love their wives properly and yet do nothing about, they are being foolish. Instead of thinking, do some lovely thing, buy some flowers, take her to a nice restaurant, and spend time with her. If we men consider all the time we spend thinking about how to love, we have wasted royal time.

Some will choose to hate (whether out of their depraved nature or satanic influence) and will never taste of how great it is to love. According to Lewis this is a deadly cycle:

The more cruel you are the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become—and so on in a vicious circle for ever.[3]

According to Titus, hate is descriptive of our former nature[4] and should not resemble our Spirit-led lives. If indeed hate resides within us, we are to seek deep repentance.

 

[1] John Murray, Principles of Conduct, pg. 22.

[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 116.

[3] Lewis, 117.

[4] Titus 3:3.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part XII, Lewis on Pride

jack-and-joy.jpg

Jack and Joy

St. Augustine wrote in the fourth century that the first thing that overcame man would be the last thing he will overcome. Augustine referred here to pride. Pride is that infelicitous malady that at the moment we think we don’t have it, we do. It is so wrapped up with our humanity that we cannot escape it. We may control it, but before we know it, we are overcome by it.

Indeed it was pride that led Eve to eat of the fruit. She pictured herself as a goddess ruling Eden. It was also Adam’s pride that kept him from interfering with Eve’s pride, for Adam thought he too could become god.

Our forefather plunged us into this estate wherein we pride ourselves for being proud. C.S. Lewis echoes Augustine when he writes:

According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride.[1]

Our pride conflicts with other people’s pride and in the end we are caught in that vicious cycle. When we get annoyed with others because they are proud or when we are not the center of attention, or someone is praised, but us, we are back to that misery.

C.S. Lewis comments:

If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step. The first step is to realize that one is proud. And a biggish step, too. At least, nothing whatever can be done before it. If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.[2]

No one is immune to such corruption. To firstly admit pride is to advance against this great evil. For though the Lord is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar (Psalm 138:6).

 

[1] Mere Christianity, pg. 109.

[2] Pg. 114.

 

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IX

untitled.jpg

The Greeks divided the idea of love into “eros,” fileo,” and “Agape.”[1] The concept of “eros” is not found in the Bible though, fileo and agape are. These latter two terms tend to be used for brotherly love and a divine love. It is usually common to make a sharp distinction between these two terms, but in reality the Greek New Testaments seems to use them interchangeably.  The idea of love has been a pervasive concept in poetry and philosophy alike. As a result it has tended to be misused in certain contexts.

For Lewis, the idea of love was an insufficient reason for the maintaining of marriage. He writes:

The idea that “being in love” is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made.[2]

Professor of Ethics, Dr. Mark Ross, illustrates that if marriage does not resemble the sacrificial love of Christ for His bride, then every reason given for sustaining a relationship is futile. According to C.S. Lewis, the idea of “love” should never encapsulate our entire marriage relationship. There is also an element of a promise or a vow, by which both partners can look upon with security knowing that this is meant to last a lifetime. Our modern commitment to marriage is a horrific demonstration of how Christian virtues can be influenced by secularism and romanticism– both fatal philosophies.

[1] Some add a fourth word storge. It refers to natural affection in Modern Greek.

[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 98.

Posted on

C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part VIII

untitled3.jpeg

The greatest Christian men to have ever lived, were not great because of their theological prowess alone, but because their theology made a deep impact in their own lives. I remember reading some years ago A.N. Wilson’s massive biography of C.S. Lewis. As a non-christian Wilson cannot see how the Christian faith affects a man after conversion. He focuses the majority of his description of Lewis to his earlier unconverted days. However, as has been mentioned before, a full birth only occurs when the birth from above takes place. All that occurs prior to the new birth is unworthy to a certain extent.[1] It is in this new life that Lewis demonstrates the power of the gospel. For our sake, he has shared his wisdom.

Two areas where Lewis’ insights are gloriously welcome are the nature of the heart and the virtue of persevering.[2] St. Paul regards himself the chief of sinners. He was seeking a higher goal, a goal that would lead him to ultimate glorification. But for sanctification to occur, one must know the self, and to truly know the self, we need to see it before God’s Holiness. The language of sanctification is a more Protestant term. As far as I know I have not seen that language in Lewis’ writing. Nevertheless, you will find him using the idea of “better,” to express what we mean as sanctification, or spiritual growth. With this is mind, Lewis analyzes the nature of man:

When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands less and less his own badness.[3]

This is not difficult theology, but difficult to live. As a man grows in his faith, he begins to see the darkness of his own sin. On the other hand, the one who does not grow, begins to think highly of himself and haughtiness overcomes him. He becomes more confident of his sins, and repenting is no longer an option. The proud man has nothing to repent of since he cannot see his own sin.

Those who persevere in their faith are aware of their constant battles with sin and their longing to abandon their habits. For men, nothing is so troubling as the sins of the heart, particularly as they relate to sexuality. Overcoming this sin is like beating on the water; the water always resurfaces. The same is true of sexual temptations. Christians are to flee temptations, as Joseph did. When we break the seventh commandment we have fallen for the trap of the woman in Proverbs 7, and face the guilt and consequences of that sin.

Our society demands that we fall for this great sin. Our pagan society is waiting every second of the day for another Ted Haggard scandal to embarrass the Christian church. But they do not simply sit in their golden chairs; they actively work to see that that Christian failure takes place. In Lewis’ words:

Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of healthy, normality, youth, frankness, and good humor.[4]

The tactic is simple as Lewis mentions, associate that which is evil with that which is good. But this devilish trap must not prevail. We need to be constantly aware of our own depravity and need of grace. The unfortunate aspect of this entire dimension is that we are never going to be fully free from temptations. Indeed, we will fall, if not in deed, in our hearts. But there is recovery for those who persevere.

After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue of itself but just this power of always trying again.[5]

Persevering is a virtue and our salvation rests in the grace of God to discipline His own and prepare them to walk once again when they have fallen.

   

[1] The Apostle Paul spoke of the days in which he persecuted the Christians, but now all those things are left behind, so that he may pursue the excellencies of Christ.

[2] This latter is not one of the virtues Lewis lists, but I have chosen such for clarity purpose.

[3] Mere Christianity, pg.88

[4] Ibid. 93.

[5] Lewis, 94.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part VI

In this final book,[1] Lewis speaks about the “so what” of the Christian life. Book III on Christian Behaviour goes far beyond the theological snobbery. In past times in Church History, theology was not seen as being application. This idea changed radically with William Ames (the Puritan), and more contemporary thinkers in the Reformed and Anglican tradition that stress theology is practical.[2] After all, what would be the sense of theological inquiry if it had no application beyond the classroom or Star Bucks? Biblical theology is ethical and so are all things. If we deny that, we return to the abstractionism of the Greeks.

C.S. Lewis discusses then the three ideas of morality:

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.[3]

Allow me to summarize Lewis in three words: Human morality is concerned with a) relationships, b) internal, and c) eternal. In this last point, the reader needs to realize that morality goes far beyond our lives here. It prepares us for a life to come. In my own thinking I have tried to ameliorate that absurd notion that our goal is to forget this evil world and prepare for the next. This does not seem to be the idea of the apostle Paul nor of Jesus. Nevertheless, the world to come is of significance to all because our morality may be motivated by it. This should not be a meritorious motivation (Ephesians 2:8-10), but as a sign that there is more to life than this world. C.S. Lewis writes:

Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live forever.[4]

This is brilliant logic! Why should anyone live decently if this is all there is to it? Sartre would be right. Nietzsche would be right. But existential atheism is immoral, because it denies the life to come. This is the already, but the not-yet is around the corner for any of us. Morality is crucial in this respect. As in Pascal’s wager, if you live immorally you have everything to lose, but if you live morally under the guidance of a sovereign authority, you have nothing to lose.

This world is not eternal. The hyper-Preterist (probably unheard of in Lewis’ day)[5] is wrong in denying that this present world will end one day. Christ will make all things new through the purification of all things. He will not annihilate this world, but bring it to its intended use. It will be a sort of perfect, perfect Eden. Since the earth, in its present form is not eternal, then some elements of this earth are also not eternal, like the state.

If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization with his, is only a moment.[6]

The idea that the state is only a temporary tool in the hands of God to preserve justice is powerful indeed.[7] In the New Heavens and New Earth, justice will have been completed and civil government as we know it will be done away with, since there will be no more role for justice, since all justice has been fulfilled in Christ’s second Advent. Nevertheless, in hell, the state will also not exist, though that righteous justice will be applied negatively forever. This is what Gary North would term, the eternal negative sanctions of the covenant.

This holistic theme in Lewis leads to the idea of the intellect. We have been speaking of Lewis’ idea of morality. But true morality is implicit is true theology. The thinking is not absent. In fact, God hates slack (Proverbs 10:4; 18:9). The slacker or lazy will have a hard time entering into a new kingdom where strength, courage, and honor are exalted. This has nothing to do with height or physical strength (consider Frodo). Lewis explains:

God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something, which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all.[8]

Christianity is not alluring at first sight. It is like Christian’s journey in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is filled with difficulty and turmoil. Bumper stickers that speak of “Have Joy, Have Jesus” are speaking devilish non-sense. One must count the cost if he is to embrace the gospel. It may even require leaving family and friends. And your brain always comes with you in this new journey. As Lewis mentioned, it requires brain and all. The modern aversion to intellectual endeavor is sinful. In fact, the Christian faith calls for believing intellectuals who at one hand can read the mysteries of Revelation and on the other hand, read of the details of daily living in Proverbs. It is an unbroken unit.

Christian Behaviour touches on much more. Among them are the seven cardinal virtues. In order to briefly speak of one of these elements, let us hear the words of Lewis on the virtue of temperance:

Temperance referred not especially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going to the right length and no further.[9]

The inception of fundamentalism urged that Christians in all places cease to drink their beer and wine. Why? Because they limited temperance to drinking alone. The Sunday morning minister who shuns alcohol and proceeds to indulge his flesh in a buffet is a sinful hypocrite.The teetotalism that Lewis speaks of is a misapplication of the law of plentifulness. God has given us wine and drink so that we may enjoy his bountifulness. Christians forget that their liberties are not tools for abuse, but tools for refreshment.

Some struggle with certain sins, like alcohol and as a result they deny the cup of wine passed to them at the Eucharist. They think it will tempt them to return to their bad habits. This is once again foolish and has led to the unbiblical notion of grape juice in the supper. This is a result of the early anti-alcohol amendments. Do you think that there were alcoholics in the first century? Of course. Do you think alcoholics back then struggled with temptations in this area? Of course. Then, why did Paul still serve real wine in the Sacrament? He did because no sin or temptation can overcome the shedding of blood of our Lord. The wine serves as perpetual reminder that our sins are blotted out and we are made new through this covenant communion.

Some will try to impose their temptations on others by saying that since they do not drink, then you should not drink either. To which Lewis responds,

One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up.[11]

Christian Behaviour is to be an impetus to all people enjoying all things.[12]This is similar to Luther’s idea that the abuse of something is not an argument for its proper use. Because someone enjoys that which you are tempted with, is no reason to expect that they give it up for your sake (unless mutually agreed upon).  When all things are used properly, then Christian Behavior is seen in its proper light—the light of Christ.

[1] There is a fourth book in this copy of Lewis’ Mere Christianity that deals with issues Trinitarian. They, as far as I know, were not originally part of the talks. Therefore, they will not be added to this discussion.

[2] Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, N.T. Wright and others all stress the ethics of the Bible.

[3] Mere Christianity, pg. 71.

[4] Ibid. 73.

[5] With the possible exception of the British author James Stuart Russell.

[6] Ibid. 73.

[7] Romans 13.

[8] Lewis, 75.

[9] Ibid. 76.

[10] At least on two grounds, gluttony and Sabbath breaking.

[11] Mere Christianity, pg. 76.

[12] Granted, I will not offer the alcoholic a drop of wine in my home. But the issue at the sacrament is an issue of command.

Posted on

The Wisdom of Henry Nouwen and the Glory of Service

Some questions are worth asking. It was in fact a question that led Henry Nouwen to exam carefully what Christ demands of leaders, as opposed to the world’s qualifications. Nouwen writes that as he became older and realized that doubling his years would be unlikely, he asked himself: “Did becoming older bring me closer to Jesus?”[1] The answer to this question forms the content of his book. Throughout church history self-analysis was an essential duty of man. The Puritans were masters at analyzing their souls. Our current society adores fooling itself. It says that to analyze self is a royal waste since to whom are they responsible to, except self. This is one among many differences between the Christian faith of Nouwen and secular culture.

Nouwen was not comfortable with the version of maturity that so many express.[2] He wanted to dig deeper into his soul and find why his prayers were so poor and why was he re-considering those burning questions that he once thought to have been answered. The great lecturer of Harvard was now facing a new dilemma: where to go from here? The answer took him to where he spent his last days. One of the greatest catholic minds henry-nouwen.jpgof our time moved his brilliance to L’Arche. L’Arche is a community for handicapped people. It is there that Henry Nouwen gleaned so richly to form a Christo-centric view of leadership.

Analyzing Jesus’ temptation in Matthew 4 and Peter’s call to be a shepherd in John 21, Nouwen succeeds in bringing to life those mysterious, but conspicuous elements of Christian leadership. The overwhelming amount of knowledge and academic credentials seem worthless when one’s job is to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Yet it was in this time when Nouwen writes:

This experience was and, in many ways, is still the most important experience of my new life, because it forced me to rediscover my true identity.[3] Continue reading “The Wisdom of Henry Nouwen and the Glory of Service”