Ministry is entering with our human brokenness into communion with others and speaking a word of hope. This hope is not based on any power to solve the problems of those with whom we live, but on the love of God, which becomes visible when we let go of our fears of being out of control and enter into his presence in a shared confession of weakness.
— Henri Nouwen, ¡Gracias!
Henri Nouwen keeps talking to me.
His gentleness and his earnest and lovely writing always charm me. I cannot help but like him when I read his books. I cannot help but find myself underlining sentences and marking paragraphs for later reference. He writes words that cause my soul to take notice.
His writing, I suspect, is not that valuable to non-Christians or even, perhaps, Christians who do not share his educated and Western affluence. He never quite escapes his own paternalistic attitude toward the poor and the disabled. They are always in some ways “others” that he must cross gulfs to understand. They are often — even when he tries to avoid it — objects of his affection or compassion. Their existence often appears to be most cherished by Nouwen when they help him understand himself better.
To his credit, Nouwen knows this about himself. He sees his own need to control and his own reliance on his education and social position. He understands his own consuming desire for praise and admiration. He feels them as burdens in some ways, but burdens he never completely lays down. His participation with the poor or disabled always has the quality of a voluntary act, one he could walk away from. His choice to be among them always has a whiff of noblesse oblige about it, even as he writes of the gifts they give him.
I find Nouwen so constantly intriguing, though, because I believe he knew this about himself. I don’t think he was falsely humble or hypocritical. He knew his soul was divided against itself in many ways. He did not pretend to has escaped the fallen nature — what he called brokenness — of humanity, even as he sought healing.
He remains for me a testimony about how hard we recoil against true Christ-like humility and how powerful are the temptations that lure us to pride and self-justification.
As a United Methodist who values John Wesley’s teachings, I am troubled by some aspects of his testimony, though. Nouwen often seems to me to embrace his brokenness to such a degree that he cannot imagine being truly healthy. He hopes to become slowly more mature in his thinking and spirituality. With the help of good therapy, he learns to put away childish things, but he does not appear to expect to be renewed.
Perhaps this is a sign that I read Wesley too strongly or Nouwen too weakly, but I do hear something incompatible in their voices. Even though both would affirm that life in the body will always be a life of temptation and a life subject to frailty and error, Wesley sounds more optimistic about the power of grace to heal brokenness (break the power of sin) than Nouwen does. Nouwen feels resolved to a life without the possibility of victory over sin. Wesley is not.
I am not certain what to make of this incompatibility. But I take note of its presence. It calls me to further reflection and prayer.
Nouwen is resolved to a life without the possibility of victory over sin….in this life. A statement of authentic Catholic belief and practice.
The incompatability which you detect is the distinction between Methodist and Catholic theology.
So Catholic understanding is that sin is stronger than grace?
Few are thought to fully attain a state of grace compatible with sainthood while in this earthly existence although all are encouraged to strive to the extent they can or will. For most of us sanctification is a long process which continues after death. Catholicism doesn’t, of course, state that sin is stronger than grace, but neither does it underestimate the power of sin in our lives.
Nouwen’s sense of brokenness actually resonates with secular/scientific views of our kluged together embodiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases ), and seems more in keeping with what we know of human experience than Wesley’s hoped for, but not experienced, states of extra-human development. There does seem to be a ‘middle-ground’ in that while we cannot will our way out of our habits/biases they are somewhat plastic and so amenable to a gentle shaping by experiences of grace, and if we are engaged in spiritual methods/disciplines ( a common ground between Catholicism and Methodism) we can make our-selves more available to, more practiced in, a more grace-filled way of being in relation to life.
Can you expand on your thinking about Wesley’s “hoped for, but not experienced, states of extra-human development”?
sure, from his studies and speculations Wesley wrote of the human/earthly possibility of more advanced stages of spiritual development/maturity than he himself reported experiencing personally in his lifetime.
I am not at a place to view my copies of Wesley’s journals but I would still have to disagree with you here Dirk. Wesley’s Journals contain numerous entries of people whom he met and dialogued with that he classified as having experienced sanctification and even “entire-sanctification.” He certainly questioned his own experience of the same but he did experience it in others and noted such in his observations.
not sure what it means to “experience” spiritual senses in others (what would one use to detect them?) or how much credence to give to Wesley’s reports. There is an aspect of Wesley’s work that reminds one of William James (who of course reported on Wesley) and I think there is something of a model to be found in these commonalities in that both used the best resources of their times to try and flesh our our capacities for being more available to grace and to understanding what limits such relations. So what are the best resources of our times?
One, I agree with Ken’s take on things, but, two, I’m not sure how what you describe here is “extra-human.” In a sense, everything Wesley described is extra-human, if by that you mean it depends on grace.
What an interesting thought, especially as Wesley and Nouwen are two of my spiritual guides. In some ways, I like the tension. But the more I think about the difference, the more I see where you are coming from. I am thinking especially in terms of Wesley’s understanding of Christian perfection and Nouwen’s understanding of the wounded healer. I wonder if there is the possibility to understand this difference not as oppositional but as a difference in focus? i.e. Nouwen points us to institutional and communal sin, while Wesley points us to personal sin?
I’m sure there is something here that has to do with difference in emphasis or point of concern, although I’m not certain at all that at the end you can resolve the differences. Nouwen does seem to write much more about institutional sin, but he does not ignore individual sin, for instance.
This is an excellent reflection, John. I believe you articulated precisely the reason I choose to remain a Methodist.
Thank you for this.
Thank you for this and other comments, Chad.
Having read much of Brennan Manning’s work, I find him to be the same as Nouwen – perhaps I am reading too much into him, as well.
I’m not familiar with Manning.
I came across your post shortly after reading an article in the NY Times–an opinion piece that expresses a view similar to Nouwen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/dowd-why-god.html?hp&_r=1&
For me, the reader’s comments in response to this article are the most thought- provoking part. The original article is fairly standard Catholic/Christian/Nouwenesque thinking. The comments are often from a non-Christian or secular perspective. As I read them, I find myself wondering whether Nowen’s perspective, the Roman Catholic perspective, and the perspective of the author of this article are adequate. I conclude that it is inadequate.
Perhaps Wesley has something to say to us still. During the last 5 years of my ministry, I began to see God working in powerful ways among the dying, and the poor in my community. I saw deathbed conversions to Christ, when I was bold enough to offer Christ to the dying. (This was NOT how I was trained in CPE.) I witnessed miracles of healing, and conversion. It was very Wesleyan.
Yes, if we read what God did through John Wesley (primarily in his journal entries), I think we get a glimpse of what we might offer hurting people if we dare.
Great testimony, Holly. Thank you.
Like others have echoed, great thoughts here. I had to sleep on this one before responding for I have found much same dilemma at work at times in reading Wesley’s Sermons and Journals and then reading from others from other veins of our Christian heritage.
It seems to me that what is at issue is a contrast of streams of mystical thought/theology. John Wesley was influenced by mystical writers prior to Aldersgate and afterwards. He came out writing very critically about it yet the influence on his own model of growth in grace/sanctification (and I will have to disagree with dirk’s earlier assessment regarding Wesley and moral development theory See: Moral Development Foundations: Judeo-Christian Alternatives to Piaget/Kohlberg by Donald M. Joy). In regards to the influence of mysticism specifically on Wesley’s understanding of this growth, Robert Tuttle’s book, Mysticism in the Wesleyan Tradition, does an excellent job of tracing this process in Wesley’s thoughts on the subject.
To your point, I think there is actually a contrast between the two streams of mysticism and Nouwen and Wesley in their approach to God. There is little argument that Nouwen will be classified and regarded as one of the 20th centuries distinguished mystical writers. While not studying him in depth, his writings and approach in line with the “apophatic way,” that is God is best known through negation, elimination, the removal of images and symbols from our journey. In part, the less we are as well, the more we come comprehend and know God.
The other stream is the “kataphatic way.” It stresses the incarnation, the use of symbols and images. In a recent paper examining Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises (the kataphatic way) and our Wesleyan framework, I found much of what Ignatius wrote to be compatible with Wesleyan practice. Yet in other places, such as Wesley’s sermon on “The Wilderness State,” his writing is also inline with the apophatic way (Wesley did not have a full understanding of the meaning behind “dark night of the soul,” nor do many Christians today when they use John of the Cross’ terminology.)
Harvey Egan observed that there is a tendency among modern writers to eliminate one of the two forms as the approaches are very different. He notes that in the end, both are approaches to orthodox Christian spirituality, they also have their weaknesses and tendencies toward their own forms of legalism (I have found Harvey Egan’s, “Christian Apophatic and Kataphatic Mysticisms,” 1978 – ATLASerials, to be most helpful in understanding the ).
In the voice of Wesley, I hear what he writes – the overcoming of sin – but also his struggle, seemingly at times to convince himself of the possibility. We must also acknowledge Wesley’s works are of such a larger scope than Nouwen’s and the personal journey of Wesley may at times get blended or neglected in our reading. Is there a tension? Yes. Incompatability? Possibly, but I think we need to determine the lense to make that examination. I put forward one such lense over at my blog precisely related to my own research on this point: http://www.jedipastorken.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-inconvenient-truth-john-wesley-and.html
“He never quite escapes his own paternalistic attitude toward the poor and the disabled.” I’ve read about 10 Henri Nouwen books and I honestly don’t think I ever encountered this. Do you have an example because it may be that I share the same blind spots?
I’m not sure that “brokenness” means to Nouwen what you have interpreted it to mean. To me, it means a perpetual awareness of my own weakness and a ceaseless amazement at how God uses me anyway. I think the fault-line between Nouwen and Wesley is that Nouwen is more of a pastor while Wesley is more of a prophet. I don’t think Wesley would do very well as a Christian counselor, though he would make a great coach.
The important contribution that Nouwen makes to my understanding of sanctification is that it involves my transformation into a perfectly hospitable person. It is not an abstract flawlessness, which would be a misappropriation of Wesley’s Christian perfection anyway. It involves being filled perfectly with love, pure worship with regard to God, pure hospitality with regard to neighbor. When Christians think the goal is something other than becoming perfectly loving, that’s when we become Pharisees.
I do not have a specific quote at the ready. The post tries to describe some of it. As the father of a child on the autism spectrum, I may be overly sensitive to some of his language, but there is the sense of people having value to him because of what they teach him about himself.
“I don’t think Wesley would do very well as a Christian counselor, though he would make a great coach.”
I think it’s precisely because of his prophetic voice that would make him the better counselor. To echo my earlier sentiments, Nouwen may be the counselor we would *want* but Wesley would be the one we *need.* Good counseling is confrontational in nature rather than consoling.
This is one of those apples and oranges comparisons to make. To make the leap of comparing the writings of a 17th Century Anglican clergy to a 20th Century Catholic Monk may well be stretching our since of fairness in this discussion. Thanks Morgan for pointing that out.
Consider that Nouwen has the ability to write to an audience of his own culture and the benefits of editors to examine and rewrite his words. The Wesley we are reading is clearly not written in either our language. His works are also are varied in their nature. Are we comparing Wesley’s Sermons to Nouwen’s books? I think this is clearly not a fair comparison to be attempting if we are comparing who is a “pastor” or “prophet.”
Dr. Steve Harper makes the case that Wesley demonstrated a great deal of care and gave much attention to the role of the care of the people he pastored. Harper writes the following:
“I have come to believe that it is the letters where we see the
spiritual guidance of Wesley most personally demonstrated. There can be
no doubt that Wesley knew that letters were a time-honored medium of
spiritual direction. One cannot read his letters without thinking of those of
Francois Fenelon—one of Wesley’s own spiritual formation resources.”
I have found these personal writings to be, as one would expect, a far different sort in tone and manner than what we’ve come to expect from Wesley’s Sermons, Notes, or even his journals. I return as well to early post regarding the two approaches to mystical/spiritual formation writings. Nouwen and Wesley clearly lean toward to the two separate strains of the mystic tradition. They are not necessarily in disagreement but are different in language and nature.
And I’ll confess that I’m a little bothered by the use of the word “incompatible.” People use that word when they’re policing the borders of orthodoxy.
John,
I don’t have time at present to unpack the following statement, but perhaps it can stand without that. Your post helped me see how I wanted Nouwen in my addiction but needed Wesley in my redemption (I choose this word over “recovery”).