Irrelevance with Vulnerability

Outside Reading

December 1, 2016

Henri Nouwen in his book In the Name of Jesus writes about some of his thoughts on Christian leadership while taking the reader through his journey from being a professor of theology and psychology to working at L’Arche community for the mentally handicapped. In the first chapter of his book, he writes about how leaders in the church do not need to be relevant but they do need to know the heart of Jesus.  The Christian does not have an identity that waivers, that conforms to each generation or cultural setting. The Christian has an identity that is created by God and that is steadfast. Nouwen writes that, “the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self” (17). I wonder if the academic world sometimes hides behind scholarly research and theories and avoids talking to real people. Hard truths are easy to tell in a classroom. It is easy to talk about depravity and injustice and the stratification of social classes but what is the meaning that comes from those conversations. I wonder if human beings are more relational than we think and hard truths may only hit if they are delivered individually, in the context of this relationship. Why else would God become a man and spend his ministry talking with a group of twelve guys? We should be vulnerable because Jesus was vulnerable and his love changed the course of history forever.

Be Thankful, Outside Reading 4

As thanksgiving has come and gone, I came across a blog on Lewis' opinion on thanksgiving, titled: 'The Art of the Thank You Note'. He believes that we should be grateful for all that we have been given -- both the good and the bad. Lewis had definitely been given much in his life; he was a professor, which is very highly regarded in culture, but he also suffered through the pain of losing the woman he loved and feeling helpless. Both of these situations in his life, he is grateful for. For the good in our life allows us to see that we are Loved. However, the "bad" in our life may be doing more for us in the long run. Suffering is to create a humble heart in us, along with patience. Giving thanks to those who show us love is something that allows us to feel that love even more so. We are to be in a constant state of thankfulness, for it produces in us things we are unable to do without it. Do not allow suffering to come and go without pushing into it. However, do not be so focused on preparing for times such as those that you forget to focus on the good in your life. Be thankful that you were able to sit around a table with your loved ones and engage in loving conversation. God is good, and God is the creator of life -- we need to see it as such.

Lewis and Marriage, Outside Reading 3

In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis tells his view of Christian marriage, and ultimately concludes that there are two conceptions of marriage-- the Christian and a state governed marriage. He says that there is a debate among Christians as to how much a Christian should press upon their view of marriage to the state. Lewis says that one should not impress it whatsoever. There should be two distinct kinds of marriages. One of these the state should rule over one, while the church ruling over her members in the other kind of marriage. However, he says that the distinction between the two should be easily seen among man. Tolkien is absolutely annoyed with Lewis' view. He says that there is no Christian morals that are valid for Christians only. He uses Lewis' "human machine" and says that Christian marriage is the correct way for the machine to run, so how could there be two distinct marriages and yet have the machine run properly? Which of these views do you most align with and why? Should the church be involved in the state when it comes to marriage?

Christian Behavior, Outside reading 2

In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis is attempting to appeal to the Fool's (the unbeliever) reason. He is making an attempt to evangelize and make the religion and faith more appealing to individuals who may be more intellectual than anything else. All throughout the book, he uses practical analogies to allow for a much simpler image of Christianity and what it looks like. For example, he discusses how a car is built to run on gasoline, and how without gasoline it would not run properly. Similarly, humans are made to run on God, and are unable to run properly on anything else. Further, God does not love humans because we are good, but rather, he makes us good because He loves us. It is much like the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but it is bright because the sun shines on it.

Do you think the use of analogies, either by lewis in general, appeal to one's reason? Are they effective in potentially getting a person to believe in the same things you do?

Control v. trust

This idea of control versus trust was presented in class in reference to Till We Have Faces. Orual is really encountering this when she is trying to convince Psyche to use light to see the face of her husband. How often do people want there to be a light shone on God? To see the face of the Creator? Even when we are told that we will face God one day. One day we will be face to face with the one who gave us life and will answer for our life and the choices we made in it. Yet people want that now, they want certainty to make choices having already seen that face they will one day face. The culture we are in now, thinks it to be logical that we must have certainty before we place our actions on the line for something. Somehow there is courage, like Nietzche talks about, facing the nothingness courageously. But I feel there is more courage if you were to trust the unknown, the dangerous and fearsome God of the Old Testament. The God that made Himself man and suffered with us and for us. The God that we can know and talk to. Taking control of something that is not even yours, due to the fact that we aren't self-created. We must trust in that which gave us life. In along the thought of Pascal, why would we not bet everything on this Great God we are told about in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures? This isn't air tight, nor perfect in logic. But when the thought of control versus trust came up that's what came to mind. That we have a culture that wants to control. Yet it appears that might come from the fact that deep down they know they can't. They are scared to trust in something unknown and dangerous such as the Great God and Creator of the universe. Why that scares people I don't know, each person has their own reason. Yet it appears to be the world we live in, fearful of the unknown. Allowing that fear to have them cave in to comfort, the temporal comfort of this world.

Beauty and identity

In our discussion of Till We Have Faces, we talked about the part were Psyche is found by Orual in rags and Orual asks her about why she is a princess in rags. This really hit me, because the title of princess is not given because of appearance. Now maybe princesses are expected to dress a certain way. But the way the question was posed made me think of how Psyche was a princess not for clothes but her blood. Her identity wasn't and isn't based on what she wears and what she does. This is the idea that the world tries to push on us, that our identity is what we do or accomplish or look like. Yet our identity is in who we were created to be, beloved children of the Creator. Royalty or poor, your appearance, actions, or relationships don't identify you. They may and tend to shape who you choose to be but your identity is not something that can fluctuate. I am Keegan Ruddy and will always be Keegan Ruddy. I look different now then I once did. I act different now then I once did. The same will be true in the future, by the grace of God it will be improvement from now. But I will continue to be a beloved son of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Paradox of Storge

I loved this idea, in The Four Loves, Lewis wrote about the paradox of affectionate love. Specifically in the relationship between a mother and an infant. He paints pictures of human and animal mothers nursing their children and how it exemplifies both 'Need-love' and 'Gift-love'. The child is in need of the mother for protection and nourishment. The mother gifts her love to the child that is of her flesh. Yet she also needs to do this, she endures the pain and pangs of childbirth for the child but also for herself to avoid further pain. She must nurse to avoid pain. The child is only 'Need-love' has not much to give at that point. Yet the mother is both 'Gift-love' and 'Need-love', giving her love to her child,, but also doing so out of necessity. Lewis painted a beautiful picture of just what exactly affection is. Not being graphic, just really pure and beautiful.