I’m not a scholar…

As I was reading further in Henri Nouwen’s The Wounded Healer I was struck by something and question the greater implications of his writings, now nearly forty years later. You see, so many people with whom I speak are familiar with the book. When I ask, they nod their heads with a sense of not only having read the book but also of connecting with the words and concepts. I suppose that’s seen over and over again – we see ourselves in other’s stories…I think that is in part, the very story of God: the small stories of our lives intermingling and intertwining with others as part of God’s great story. More central to my thought of today, however, are not the smaller stories with the story but rather a sense of history repeating itself and the implications that accompany that.

In the second part of the book, entitled Ministry for a Rootless Generation, Nouwen notes three characteristic of the (at-that-time) coming (now past) generation: (1) they are inward, (2) they are a generation without fathers, and finally, (3) they are convulsive*.

After addressing these issues, he characterizes three aspects of “tomorrow’s leader”. They are (1) the minister as the articulator of inner events, (2) compassion, and (3) the minister as contemplative man*.

Over and over again I found myself identifying with his writings. At times, it was very personal, “Yes, I am”, “I feel this way”, “I think that’s true”. For other examples and concepts that I didn’t necessarily identity with, I thought of my peers and how true those things are for them.

And then it hit me. Nouwen references Psychology Today from 1969. Another reference, a letter, was from 1970. The book was first published in 1972. The generation of which he wrote wasn’t mine, or even the one before that, much less those coming up behind us.

So what are the further implications? What does it mean for a fatherless generation to give birth to a fatherless generation (and perhaps, another fatherless generation after that)? Are there new implications, consequences, and results–or–are the results similar yet greater, only further exacerbated by the generation’s depth or removal from that first fatherless generation?

(I’m not a scholar and this is a blog so I don’t have to answer those questions here, but I am wondering. ;)

Let’s say that both are true – (1) there are further implications (that won’t be considered at this time) and (2) the results are also similar, though probably compounded. I believe the latter because of the need I see for the very characteristics he described for “tomorrow’s leader”. Of course, I would also argue that, in regards to the former there also lie other needs and that, once again, in regards to the latter, those characteristics must develop to a greater degree (to counterbalance the exacerbated characteristics of the generation).

I recently read a paper in which the author pointed out future trends of the church. Perhaps better stated, the author pointed out future trends of culture and society to which the church must respond, and essentially, grow with or address in order to reach people for Jesus not only today but in the days and years to come.

While I cannot reference those five points here due to the unpublished nature of the paper, ☺ I see some of them as being rooted or tied to Nouwen’s which only further solidifies my belief that “both are true” (see two paragraphs above for more info).

I don't really feel like I have a good conclusion. I have questions without answers. How do you summarize that? I guess I'll just leave you with a few thoughts to ponder and/or action points from Nouwen's writing**:

1. Regarding the minister as the articulator of inner events:

"Since the God 'out there' or 'up there' is more or less dissolved in the many secular structures, the God within asks attention as never before..."

"The Christian leader is, therefore, first of all a [person] who is willing to put his own articulated faith at the disposal of those who ask his help."

"In this context pastoral conversation is...a deep human encounter in which man is willing to put his own faith and doubt, his own hope and despair, his own light and darkness at the disposal of others who want to find a way through their confusion and touch the solid core of life..."

2. Regarding compassion:

"Compassion must become the core and even the nature of authority."

"Through compassion it is possible to recognize that the craving for love that men feel resides also in our own hearts, that the cruelty that the world knows all too well is also rooted in our own impulses. Through compassion we also sense our hope for forgiveness in our friends' eyes and our hatred in their bitter mouths. When they kill, we know that we could have done it; when they give life, we know that we can do the same. For a compassionate man nothing human is alien: no joy and no sorrow, no way of living and no way of dying."

"Thus the authority of compassion is the possibility of man to forgive his brother, because forgiveness is only real for him who has discovered the weakness of his friends and the sins of his enemy in his own heart and is willing to call every human being his brother.

"The task of the Christian leader is to bring out the best in man and to lead him forward to a more human community..."

3. Regarding the minister as contemplative man:

"What I have in mind is a very active, engaged form of contemplation of an evocative nature. This needs more explaination..."

"The Christian leader is called to help other affirm this great news, and to make visible in daily events the fact that behind the dirty curtain of our painful symptoms there is something great to be seen: the face of Him in whose image we are shaped."

"...[the contemplative] constantly invites his fellow man to ask real, often painful and upsetting questions, to look behind the surface of smooth behavior, and to take away all the obstacles that prevent him from getting to the heart of the matter."

Ah, I finally found a conclusion-Nouwen's:
"The Christian leader who is able to not only articulate the movements of the spirit but also to contemplate his world with a critical but compassionate eye, may expect that the convulsive generation will not chose death as the ultimate desperate form for protest, but instead the new life which he has made visible the first hopeful signs."

May we be signs of hope...


*These are the point in which I would normally insert a bit of an explanation. I did so to some extent in the "conclusion" however, due to length, I decided not to write more where the asterisks appear. :) If you want more info, you can either read the second chapter of the book or raise such uproar here that I feel compelled to give further explanation here on the blog…

** This is just a small taste of the feast of knowledge and insight that awaits you in reading the whole book. :)

The two beams of the cross...

*Warning: I'm sick and I'm not sure if the meds are kicking in or wearing off, either way, I think it's all contributing to the cohesiveness (or lack there of) of this particular piece...proceed with caution.

While there are many thoughts that are on their way to the blog, they haven't yet made it. :) They are a bit older and no doubt more refined than the current idea which is bouncing around in my brain like a little red bouncy ball. However, the bouncy ball is close at hand and it has been awhile since I've written so I'll take the opportunity to share it now.

I'm reading Henri Nouwen's The Wounded Healer for (only) the second time. I search it, and myself, with hopes both of learning what it means to be a wounded healer and that I might have the courage to be one. We'll see...

One thought, in particular, that struck me tonight is found in the foundation that Nouwen lays in the first section of his book. Speaking of Jesus he writes, "His appearance in our midst has made it undeniably clear that changing the human heart and changing human society are not separate tasks, but are as interconnected as the two beams of the cross."

As some of you know, this year will be my last living in Germany. Actually, at this point, I'm down to just a few months. The other day someone asked me, in essence, about how I could most benefit the church or vise versa; it all runs together. My initial reaction and response still stand, "I don't know, but I'm willing to think about it more..."

I really don't know. I do have some ideas but I'm less than sure how (and if) they interact. Nouwen's quote makes me further believe that they do. Many of my dreams and ideas have more to do with the changing of society, however I know that cannot be done apart from changed hearts and, well, Jesus is the only one I know who can do that.

I believe in the local church (even though I am admittedly at least a little scared to be a part of one upon returning to the States). I believe that the hope of the world is Jesus Christ lived out through the local church. We are his body - we are all to be a Eucharist - living our lives as broken bread and poured out wine. Or, perhaps better stated, we are to be Christ- His body- and that comes with an understanding that, as such, we pour our lives out for his sake - for others. We participate in the story God is writing; we participate in the stories in individual lives he creates. As he is lived out we will continue to see both hearts and society being changed.

No, these are no separate tasks. Laws and doctrine may (attempt to) govern each, but it is Jesus who actually changes them. "Jesus was a revolutionary, who did not become an extremist, since he did not offer an ideology, but Himself," Nouwen writes. May we offer Jesus as we offer ourselves and in the process find that indeed, "the changing the human heart and chancing human society are not separate tasks, but are as interconnected as the two beams of the cross..."