Henri Nouwen has long been a bon vivant of the evangelical world, even before his death in 1996. Nouwen was a Dutch Roman Catholic priest who held prestigious posts at the University of Notre Dame and Yale Divinity School before giving up a promising academic career to work at a home for the mentally disadvantaged in Toronto, L'Arche Daybreak.
His writings are immensely popular, especially with evangelicals. JP Moreland, in his recent Kingdom Triangle has said that Nouwen's work has a different “texture” than many other writers on the spiritual life. It's as if Nouwen had just met with God. I would have to agree.
In my undergraduate days at Tyndale, Nouwen was all the rage. In fact, Tyndale has always had a special relationship with Nouwen, given his proximity to the campus. In Timothy Larsen's history of Tyndale Seminary, For Christ in Canada, Larsen tells the story of how Nouwen was the controversial guest speaker for Tyndale's (which at that time was known as Ontario Bible College) graduation in 1991:
The Academic Dean of Tyndale (OBC) at the time, Ian Rennie, recounts that at his last meeting with Nouwen before his death, Nouwen had requested that he have an office in the seminary after his retirement, saying that “the faculty and students comprised the only academic theological audicence in Toronto that responded wholeheartedly to his message.” OBC's relationship with Nouwen was seen as scandalous by many evangelicals in the early 1990s, but Rennie justified the relationship by saying by aligning himself with “such prominent evangelicals as Alexander Whyte and A.W. Tozer who valued the great Catholic saints in their knowledge of Christ, however we might disagree with some of their Tridentine theological formulations.
One “open secret” is that Henri Nouwen struggled with homosexuality. In fact, evangelicals are now using this fact as evidence to buttress their case that it's possible for a gay Christian to live a deep fulfilling life without having to satisfy those desires. You can see Ravi Zacharias do that in the clip I've posted above. It appears that he's internalized the Henri Nouwen story as a way of responding to questions about sexuality and the church.
I now question the wisdom of this.
In Michael Ford's biography of Nouwen, The Wounded Prophet, Ford tells of the charismatic priest's close relationship to the former Catholic priest, Maurice Monette and his partner, Jeff Jackson. Ford writes:
He (had) talked humorously about what seemed like a set of impossible options, which he discussed regularly with Maurice and Jeff: The first was for him to stay a celibate priest and “come out” as a gay man; the second was for him to leave the priesthood and be open to a loving noncelibate relationship; the third was for him to remain a publicly closeted gay priest and be open to developing a relationship – not really an option, they thought, for a man of such integrity.
Ford implies here that Nouwen actually considered the second as a live option.
Ford goes on to describe Nouwen's relationship with another gay couple. Here he affirmed their commitment ceremony as being “solemn and holy.”
In Toronto, Henri Nouwen became a close friend of a gay Roman Catholic couple, Joseph Stellpflug and David Martin, who offered him their home as a sanctuary from the public demands of his priesthood. “He recognized our relationship as life-giving and we became a safe haven for him where he could just be himself,” said David. When the couple's relationship was formalized at a Metropolitan Community Church ceremony, Henri sent them a Van Gogh print with “an incredibly beautiful letter” affirming that they were making a very solemn and holy commitment. From 1994, Nouwen visited the couple once a month.
The author concludes with what is perhaps his clearest views on Nouwen's personal opinions:
Because of his wounds he was able to be a prophet in his priesthood, his writing, his teaching, … his clear support of faithful gay relationships, especially among Roman Catholics. He said gay men and women had a 'unique vocation in the Christian community.'
Of course this doesn't render Ravi's use of Nouwen's testimony illegitimate. After all, regardless of what Nouwen personally believed on the topic, by all accounts he took his vow to celibacy seriously. And yet, if Ford is right, evangelicals should seriously reconsider using Nouwen as their poster boy, his work on prayer and spirituality, notwithstanding.
So, what do you think about this? In light of this new info, should evangelicals keep recommending Nouwen's work?
Posted with Blogsy
All the other authors you do heartily recommend are unstained and unblemished?
Well I think that there are different gradations of errors. If we see them on a spectrum , with the fairly innocuous on one end and the other end representing a redefinition of the Christian religion, I’d say that Nouwen’s error here represents more the latter.
I’m open for correction on this if someone has any other information besides what Ford has claimed.
Homosexuality is the “pet” sin to hate on right now. It’s hip for Evangelicals to make a fuss, when there’s even a whiff of homosexuality.
You evaluate someone’s work, based on the work. You evaluate someone’s arguments, based on the arguments.
Assuming someone’s arguments are wrong in one area, because you disagree with them in another, is illogical (and I don’t mean that colloquially, it’s actually a logical fallacy).
And are you actually suggesting that his arguments are MORE off the mark, because some personal struggles might have been more egregious?
If you believe 2+2=5, you’re still right if you say 3+3=6, and you’re not more right or more wrong if you had instead believed 2+2=17.
You esteem C.S Lewis. There are plenty of Christians that feel smoking is as sinful as anything else (after all, sin is sin some say). How rational would it be for them to dismiss his work, based on a personal sin?
Peter was caught up in the circumcision issue… which was, in fact, a different Gospel. The argument could be made that for a time, he was an actual heretic. Surely you don’t dismiss his books of the Bible, based on that?
Actually a better comparison would be to gluttony.
Gluttony doesn’t come up often (it’s not in vogue like homosexuality is), but I think I can make the case that, in the Bible’s view, gluttony is serious; so serious in fact that it’s mentioned along with other sins (like sexual ones) and is associated with people who are apart from God, much like homosexuality.
In comparing homosexuality and gluttony, we’re not dealing with two ends of the spectrum as you suggested; I think we can say (if sins do indeed come in different shapes and sizes) that gluttony and homosexuality are closer together than they are further apart. I’m not arguing that both sins are the same, for the same reasons, but that they can be seen as being in the same class.
We know someone is homosexual because of their behaviour… though, we are not privy to their behaviour in closeted cases. We most often know that someone is homosexual because of their testimony; what they say about themselves. Homosexuality is largely matter of identity.
But how do we pick out gluttons? Gluttony is not really a matter of self-identification. It is, like many sins, one that people deny or rationalize. So, how can we know that someone is a glutton? By the fruit perhaps?
Obesity is a key marker of a gluttonous life. While some people are obese for other reasons, those are rare edge cases. Typically, people are fat because they eat more than they need to; because they lack discipline and self-control; because are gluttons.
Do you think it’s reasonable, then, to dismiss someone’s work, based on whether they are obese or not? Does someone’s obesity mean they are inherently and necessarily wrong about any other theological issue?
Would you, for example, stop recommending Doug Wilson’s books because he’s obese?
@benjamin, Obesity is caused by a metabolic problem. One person can eat a reasonable diet and gets fat. Another eats several times that and stays thin. Perhaps you could revise your argument to take that into account. Obesity is not a certain indicator of gluttony. I think it is clearly necessary to revise an understanding of gluttony based on the research of Gary Taubes et al.
@Keith, the question you pose is quite intriguing, and Benjamin’s arguments provide an interesting caveat. Once I asked Dr. Houston at Regent why he spent so much time on Origen, didn’t the man have himself castrated? His response, you can hardly judge the man’s lifetime of accomplishments on a single youthful indiscretion. Would it be possible to characterize Nouwen’s flaw as a youthful indiscretion? Are there other glaring problems in his background or in his theology? It would be surprising to me that this one somewhat hidden issue is the end of the problems that one might have with Nouwen’s work.
Then again, Lonnie Frisbee is another example of what folks often consider to be a flawed, Sampson-like individual, who was apparently used by God. Then again, if Frisbee was inhabited with demons to begin with (not impossible since he received his call to ministry while on LSD) and thus derived his extraordinary power not from the Holy Spirit but from the demonic, then it might also explain some of the many unorthodox and strange activities that are associated with Vineyard Movement. These are questions that require discernment, and there is not always an easy answer.
@PW:
I’m fine to simply restrict my point simply to someone who is gluttonous; I wondered if that might be a sticking point for some, so that’s fine. It doesn’t really change the argument too much. The same would go for someone who has raging temper at home or struggles with alcoholism.
Not to harp, but this is important, because of the implications (ranging from xenophobia to phariseeism).
1) You have to prove that being wrong about one thing means you’re wrong in another; I’ve indicated this is a logical fallacy. This is essential.
2) If you believe it’s not just a mater of logical consistency, but that someone’s moral character (or “their walk”) necessarily taints the whole of their theology, you must then concede that no one’s theology is worthy, including the author’s of the Bible, for all have sinned.
3) If you believe that there’s “a gradation of errors,” you need to show how a particular view of homosexuality constitutes “a redefinition of the Christian religion”
4) Finally, you need to explain how it is you could support other authors with whom you disagree at points; surely you wouldn’t dismiss a brilliant body of works simply because you disagreed with the author’s view on predestination? That would be untenably myopic.
Ben, I think you’re missing the point of Keith’s post. If the extent of it was that Nouwen struggled with leaving the priesthood because of his same sex attraction, I think this would much ado about nothing. The main issue seems to be his “secret” affirming of same sex relationships.
If we want to continue using gluttony as an issue. It’s one thing for a pastor to struggle with his weight openly (lose weight, gain it back, lose it again) but it’s an entirely different ball game if that pastor doesn’t believe that gluttony is actually a sin.
I too think that it’s entirely unfair the focus that is placed on this one particular sin. But it’s become a bigger problem when people within the church want to re-write God’s word to accomodate that sin. Just the other day on Facebook I was chatting with an acquaintance who said “it’s easy for you to say the church shouldn’t normalize homosexual relationships, you’re not gay.” It didn’t make sense to me because that logic could be applied to anything. Hence my response, “If I were a thief, should the church then normalize theft?”. A particular view of homosexuality constitutes a redefinition of the Christian religion because it:
a) seeks to removes authority from scripture.
b) seeks to remove the need to repent of sin, by redefining what is and is not a sin.
To answer a part of your questions, did the secret beliefs and activities of our little brown friend not taint the entirety of our relationship with him? If Nouwen was open about his true position from the get go, evangelicals probably would have had a different relationship with him and his influence would have been far less significant.
FWIW: people in the west can ingest the same amount of food as people in other parts of the world and be obese simply due to the fact that the foods that we eat have a higher caloric value. So I don’t think that it’s as simple as saying that fat = glutton.
@Jason, some interesting points.
I wanted to bring up a point about your statements about gluttony. What if a pastor doesn’t believe gluttony is a sin? What is gluttony? Secondly, you write that people in the West could be obese because the food here would have a higher caloric value. This is vague. In what sense does our food have a higher caloric value? I recommended reading Taube (Why we get fat) because he provides substantial proof that obesity is caused by a metabolic disturbance in which the body produces too much insulin. The production of insulin is largely caused by the eating of carbohydrates. Eat to satisfaction foods low in carbs, including those foods that are high in fat (i.e., high caloric content) and protein, and you will have less problems with insulin, and you will very likely lose weight (I speak not only from my own experience but from the experience of others I know). If obesity is not so much related to metabolism as overeating, then it is impossible to tell an obese person that she is a glutton.
Now, these reflexions help me to determine what the sin of gluttony is with greater certainty. It must be to overeat or even to eat only to satisfaction when others around us suffer from want. I’m not talking about those who are on the other side of the planet in South America or Africa, but those who are in our immediate presence. Since so few people suffer want today, it seems unlikely that very many of us in North America are gluttons–or at least are in the process of committing the sin of gluttony, because we have not yet been tempted to commit the sin.
Once many years ago a pastor’s wife committed the sin of gluttony against me, when she was responsible for feeding me as I was doing manual labor for the church. She went to a burger place and ordered a regular hamburger, a coke, and regular fries for me; however, she dined on a double bacon burger, shake and large fries. Because of the work I was doing, I suffered from a lack of sufficient calories from the meal she provided, while she suffered from extreme obesity. This gesture on her part made me very upset.
Thus, gluttony is a sin that is not committed in isolation but in how it affects the people around us. Do they suffer want while we eat well? Think of the feast at the table of the wardens of the orphans in Oliver Twist.
lol brown friend.
My last post addresses Keith point much more directly. The gluttony/obesity example is probably more distracting than anything else, so I’d rather just set that aside for now; I don’t want to derail Keith’s post.
The 4 points I enumerated are much more relevant.
We should evaluate arguments based on their own merit. I have no problems recommending an author and saying, “He’s absolutely brilliant, but just so you know, he does argue for XYZ.”
His body of work is not invalidated because of (even serious) errors in one area. If that were true, no one’s work would stand.
Ben I agree, if a mathematician kills someone, 2+2 still equals 4. However, I don’t this is a simple as that. If he carried this secretly until death it’s kind of an integrity issue. We now have to call into question his motives when writing on scripture, bible commentary, counselling and spiritual development. That’s not as simple as an equation.
Lads, sorry for the belated response:
@Ben:
1) I think it’s a little naive to call homosexuality the pet sin of the day. It’s a key flank in the ongoing antithesis between biblical Christianity and modern counterfeits. I agree with Martin Luther’s sentiment here: “If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
2) I never said that Nouwen’s work on prayer is invalid. That wasn’t the point. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on this. I was trying to say that: A) it’s clear that Nouwen wasn’t an “evangelical Catholic” as I was taught at Tyndale. Plain and simple – he was a liberal. To shift on matters of sexuality is to no longer be considered an evangelical in my view. B)From a pastoral point of view, this would mean that I wouldn’t advise people that I had responsibility for to read Nouwen when there are much safer, and in light of this new evidence, better options out there. I think this is more a matter of pastoral wisdom than anything else.
3) I’d say the same thing for recommending the works of NT Wright. I think that Wright is an absolutely brilliant exegete but I’d be hesitant to recommend him to my high schoolers for two reasons: A) his applications of the biblical text are downright nutty and miss the main point; B) he seems to be a gateway drug for people who are exiting evangelicalism. There’s more than pure exegesis at play.
4) Jay’s got it right. I think there’s a clear distinction between struggling with homosexuality and deciding that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. If Ford is correct, then at the apex of his ministry, Nouwen believed that there was nothing sinful about committed same sex partnerships, and actually went so far as to bless them. For ordained clergy this is a reprehensible error. Pointing out other reprehensible errors that evangelicals make won’t dilute this point. The goal should be to become more consistent in all areas of our lives , not become more inconsistent when hypocrisy is pointed out.
5) I guess in short, we agree on much here. I’d agree we should evaluate arguments solely on merit, but we have to be mindful of other factors as well when we recommend authors and ideas. That’s a matter of wisdom, not logic. And I think wisdom here dictates that we pause before recommending Nouwen to others, even if we personally profit from his writings (like I do).
Be safe and stick with recommending a guy like Piper. Rock solid for years. Not a whiff of scandal.
Just to address Jay and Keith: I shifted the focus of my comments from his personal conduct, to the arguments he was making.
Keith, I too think we agree, generally.
“it’s clear that Nouwen wasn’t an “evangelical Catholic” as I was taught at Tyndale. Plain and simple – he was a liberal. To shift on matters of sexuality is to no longer be considered an evangelical in my view.”
This contention is really at the core of what is going on here, is it not. And I don’t know that we really understand the consequence of this defining of Christianity (at least in its evangelical protestant form) primarily about sexual conduct.
Incidentally, we’ve got a paraphrase of a personal letter and a biographer’s opinion as the “evidence” here. If someone attacked, say, Augustine, Calvin or St. Paul on this “evidence” I know that you would have a fit, Keith.
So should we then have a full history of all of authors of the books we recommend so that we can properly evaluate their theology and make sure it passes the test of what we (or the evangelical church) deems as orthodox?
With the obvious result (yes including Piper!) of things that we will eventually dig up about people’s inherent beliefs we will not be able to recommend anyone to read besides scriptures authors, and even then, we should be careful since there was disagreements in orthodoxy in the scriptures as well.
I have a hard time limiting what I would recommend based on what I think to be heretical theology, in fact, I’m more inclined to recommend heretics to read as it challenges and forces people to critically think about their faith and beliefs.
Nathan,
I think Keith’s point assumes a pastoral context. And in such a context, we have to reckon with the fact that most Christians do not have the time to be both building up confidence in their faith and dealing with criticisms from ‘heretics’. So they have to make a choice as to which one they will emphasize. I think a good pastor would direct people to prioritize on building up their faith; the unbelieving world they have to interact from day to day will certainly give them plenty of criticism to have to work through.
On the idea of a “list”: well, that’s probably more exhaustive than any pastor could do. But I recognize you were being facetious here; yet, I myself don’t see what is inherently objectionable in the idea of pastors or teachers having some knowledge of authors and books that they would recommend as being spiritually healthy, and others that they would not deem so, and directing people under their care to the former rather than the latter.
And, as you might guess, I think both Keith and I would disagree that scripture contains disagreements within itself. But that’s a whole other can of worms which can probably best be saved for another occasion.
FWIW.
Andrew, I was also speaking within a pastoral context. I would see it more pastoral to not censor the books that the people I am pastoring are reading. Warn them if anything, but don’t ignore it, that is just a recipe for blind following and then eventually having to deal with rebellion, especially with youth growing into adulthood.
Why not just say, “here is a great book on prayer, but be careful, this author is known to have some other beliefs about sexuality that we don’t teach or believe” rather than not allowing all the other things that he has to say to be heard because of your disagreement on key issues.
Sorry I didn’t even mean disagreements in scripture as in what was written, but would we not be able to find disagreements in theology of the different authors who eventually penned scripture?
Well, what do you have in mind when you say “censor”? How is that distinct from your “warning”, or Keith’s “I wouldn’t advise” or “I’d be hesitant to recommend” or “pause before recommending”?
It’s my understanding that, for the most part, we have no access to the theology of the writers of scripture except in their writings. But perhaps you’re thinking of something in particular?
@ Dan: Two points:
1) The evidence is actually more than that. It’s based on interviews with close friends of his near his death. And I did say I was willing to be corrected on this.
2) I never said anything about primarily defining Christianity in terms of sexual conduct. But if we look at the wing of the church that has arbitrarily excluded sexual behaviour from discipleship, well, we end up getting doggie baptisms and vestments that have alternate uses with the Ringling Bros. Not exactly the texture I get from reading Acts, no?
And it’s not just the Protestant evangelical form – it’s also the official teaching of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy …. and the mainstream opinion of the Church in the 2/3′s world.
Honestly though, I’d love to be corrected on this. I love Nouwen and his writings. The problem is that there is limited scholarship on his life. I think this is the only major biography done on him. We’ll see if more comes out in subsequent years.
@ Dan: by the way there is other evidence of other wonky theological views that Nouwen held. For example, I remember reading at Tyndale that Nouwen, in direct contradiction to RC teaching, would share the Eucharist with those of other faiths.
Andrew
By censor I mean to make a decision on what is legitimate or not without the other party being part of the decision. So pausing or hesitating (I’m assuming this is a personal struggle without letting in the other party) in this case would be making the decision for the other person based on whatever decision you have made before hand. So I would see my warning (the other party) a lot different than “hesitating to recommend.” In one case I am making the other party aware of the struggle I am having, in the other I am having the struggle on my own (or on this blog) than subjecting the other party to the struggle I had without the other party knowing and them only getting the result of the struggle.
In terms of theology of writers, I’m thinking of someone like King David, we know a lot about his life and decisions that he made, good and bad, and then we have some of the stuff he wrote. Would it be advisable to recommend reading or not reading some of his writing based on his theological decisions or lifestyle before or after? Or is it because it’s scripture we have a different standard for this kind of approach? I’m honestly asking that.
Nathan,
Would you disagree that there is a place for a community of people to select a wise person to guide them in such matters, and then trust that person when they make such judgments? I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful in the long run for everyone to have to make every decision on their own, without guidance from experts. It seems more efficient to delegate tasks like this, to divide up the labour, so to speak. But this assumes that the expert in question is actually trusted by members of the community, of course. But I’ll let Keith further explain the kind of situation he means, if he wishes.
That’s a good question about David. I think the Psalms, just taken as human documents, display that while David had flaws, he was fully aware of them, contrite over them, and desirous to be rid of them. And he never at any time taught people to disobey YHWH while claiming to be speaking for Him. On top of that, yes, David was also a prophet, so whatever writings of his are considered scripture, are worthy of the respect we would give to God speaking.
Andrew,
Yes I would disagree that we should allow anyone to decide for us what is pure and right based on his internal conscience and beliefs. It’s one thing to allow that person to be a voice in our lives offering wisdom (ie. the leader ‘warns’ about the potential heresies they might find which I suggested). It’s a whole other for a group of people to give judgment power to a leader and never be made aware of the process of judgment he is making. One seems democratic, one seems awfully close to a cult. I think what we can agree on is that guidance, warnings and wisdom are essential and should be welcomed from leaders. So it might be more efficient if efficiency means allowing judgment to only exists within the minds of trusted leaders but I don’t see how this is healthy, especially considering how many examples are of this kind of judgment leading to corrupt power structures throughout history.
As for David, I think why he is an example for me, despite being an author of some of our scriptures, is that for me its clear that God allows for important truths and wisdom to be dispersed from unlikely places and sources. So while Nouwen may have missed the boat on some issues (which I think we all can admit we all do, even Piper!) why do we throw the baby out with the bathwater to assume that he has nothing else to offer? Why is it even a question if we should recommend him and all he has to offer based on knowledge of some of his assumed problems? What kind of path does this lead us down if this is the kinds of questions we are after?
So I’m more answering his last question in his post, should evangelicals keep recommending Nouwen, absolutely! But the question in his Title of his post is a bit different, as I don’t think anyone should be our ‘poster boy’ especially if we are looking for someone to be sexually pure in practice and theology. Really, our poster boy should be Jesus anyway so I’m really only interested in defending him on that question.