Welcome to the 2001–2002 archives of Le Penseur Réfléchit, the Mr. Renaissance bi-weekly newsletter. You may also wish to peruse the current issues as well and you can have Le Penseur Réfléchit delivered to your inbox so that you never miss a single issue. Subscribing is free and your e-mail address will be used for the exclusive purpose of mailing these newsletters; it will not be sold or given out to anyone for any reason. Le Penseur Réfléchit is a not-for-profit production of Mr. Renaissance.

Frank Laubach: Modern Christian Mystic

May 22, 2002

Hello everyone,

What I have chosen to send today may sound a little strange to our modern ears. We have a tendency to seek God in the fireworks and impressive displays of power, turning away in disappointment when we do not find Him there. This has much to with the fact we have not cultivated the ability to listen to His still, small voice. Why is God so difficult to hear?

God’s ways are not our ways. God is a totally sinless, holy, and faultless being who is completely righteous, blemishless, and just: the height of perfection and flawlessness—there is not one single human being who measures up to this standard of absolute purity. God is goodness exemplified: “God is light. In Him there is no darkness at all.” We, on the other hand, often choke out the voice of God with our own insistence that things be done our way; our own pettiness, selfishness, sinfulness, naïveté, and greed put barriers between us and the Father. We expect to find God in awesome spectacles of might and miraculous messages without first learning to recognize Him in the smile of a child or the everyday miracles of nature around us. Further, when we live in sin, rebellion, and stubborn pride, we effectively silence that still, small voice, for our ways are not the ways of God and our inner attitudes and motives take us out of alignment with Him.

It is true that in order for God the Father to speak to us, He must be the one who does the speaking. Yet it is clear He is continually speaking to people all the time: they have just never learned how to listen. Just as the Jews rejected Jesus, thinking that the Messiah would be a great military conqueror, crushing all their foes, so too our misconceptions of a perfect God fall pathetically short of the mark. On His own accord and when it is needful, He will avenge, but for the time, that is not how He has chosen to woo all men unto Himself. He has chosen a path that is higher, a path we do not often see, for it is so foreign to our ancestry, the blood of Adam and Eve still freely coursing through our veins all these untold centuries later. How could we know what we have never known, recognize what we have never seen? But perhaps someone could at least help us know how to look? Indeed, someone already has, though what they have left us between the covers of that well-known book is often scorned and despised, subjected to the same skepticism that effectively clouds us from being able to discover anything pure or worthwhile.

Kierkegaard, ever the existentialist, expresses some interesting sentiments on this subject. He sees a person’s “concentric,” inward journey as rising from a reliance on the sensual world, to the use of “sensate language appropriated metaphorically for spiritual use” to take us toward the Center (Creegan—“Spiritual Metaphor in ‘Love Builds Up’”). Indeed, everything that we know is built upon what we have encountered once we entered this world. This is common sense, really. We were born into a world that contained trees and flowers and butterflies; we learned to accept these things as a given and elementary part of our existence, our language mirroring—even presupposing—their existence, and these things with their linguistic counterparts in turn become the basis for all our ideas: we have taken the very foundation for all our sensate knowledge for granted since the day we were born and do not question its right to exist. When we learn new things, we necessarily build them on this ever expanding foundation of the old, the vast majority of teaching done through analogy and metaphor, relating two or more somewhat dissimilar things in order to explain a third and higher concept, just as all our understanding is based on the early years of simply soaking up and apprehending everything with which our senses were presented without question of validity. It was all built on the foundation of taking the world into which we were born as a given from our birth and building on what is—not what was not.

From this rationale, Kierkegaard’s conception of “concentric” stages (though not strictly linear: more dynamic and malleable as they ring the Center) makes perfect sense, for we grow from a being immersed in the sensual world to one capable of integrating the spiritual as well, through the stepping stone of the symbols of the sensual, no less. This lack of integration is often apparent in the lower maturity level of the skeptic, who has not yet learned to apprehend the unseen spiritual dimension—the higher and more central levels of reality. Stuck in the sensual world, their materialistic presuppositions, when applied to the same knowledge the believer’s faith embarks upon, blinds them to the reality of the love woven within. Hence, it is not the knowledge itself, but the approach or “tool” applied to that knowledge that determines the validity of the outcome. Fear, foolish pride, or limiting suppositions holding them back, they have not yet learned to venture out in faith, hope, or love. As Kierkegaard writes:

If it were so, as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not then be deceived? (Qtd. in Creegan, from Kierkegaard’s Works of Love. 5.)

Seeing the inward realization of an outwardly focused love as the beginning point for a spiritual awakening, Kierkegaard continues in “Love Believes All Things—and Yet Is Never Deceived”:

Light mindedness, inexperience, naïveté believe everything that is said; vanity, conceit, complacency believe everything flattering that is said; envy, malice, corruption believe everything evil that is said; mistrust believes nothing at all; experience will teach that it is most sagacious not to believe everything—but love believes all things. (Qtd. in Creegan, from Kierkegaard’s Works of Love. 226.)

As the title implies, love believes all things, and yet is not deceived. Yet how can this be? True love sees clearly because love of self has been supplanted. It does not stiffen with skepticism or suspicion (or any other method of self-preservation), it is not easily offended, it takes no thought of itself, it puts another first: and, at the risk of begging the question though no less true, it always sees clearly for it sees through the eyes of love. To see with love is to see as the Father sees.

We, on the other hand, do not often see through the eyes of love. Even as believers, we allow our own selfishness, pettiness—clutter of all sorts—to invade our lives. This turns our focus in on ourselves, which is not the essence of which Kierkegaard speaks, for the wide-open eyes of love seek an object of affection apart from themselves. (Indeed, love presupposes the existence of an object of affection.) Inwardly focusing solely on ourselves, we begin to begrudge spending time with God and submitting to His will. “What is in it for me?” we ask. “Why should I?” sin and rebellion soon taking up the chant. Nothing about spending time with God or seeking His purpose for our lives seems attractive or desirable. Instead, we feel cold, distant, and angry that we should have to be forced to submit to God, our selfishness blinding us to the truth of His great care and love for us. We fail to see that to love God is what loving ourselves is really all about; indeed, to love God fully is to fully love oneself. There is no other way.

Yet I myself often feel out of alignment with God. This very week, for instance, I was up against a brick wall and could think of nothing to send, my creativity withered and my prayers availing nothing. Finally, in exasperation, my prayer reaching a frenzied pitch, I asked God for what seemed the hundredth time what He would have me to send this week. Suddenly my head cleared and I knew He was directing me to Devotional Classics: Selected Readings For Individuals and Groups buried on top of my scanner under a stack of paper inches in front of me. Prayer answered: I am well pleased, right? At first, yes, visions of renowned Christian mystics and deep, spiritual insights dancing through my brain. That is, until I read the proposed entry. The first time through, my personal thoughts went something like this: What planet is this guy from, anyway? My readers will never buy into this. This is so idealistic; I need to find something more realistic, preferably deep, insightful, probing. Are you sure about this particular entry, God? Maybe I heard you wrong. In fact, I was even tempted to throw the book across the room in disgust. Then I took out the scrap of paper stuck in the fold. Inspiration rarely strikes when it is convenient, so I have “writing doodles” scribbled on paper napkins and everything else imaginable: this “bookmark” was one such example, hastily transcribed on the back of an old Literature quiz on lunch break one day:

Smiling. A great mystery happens when you draw close to God. You lose the sense of self-consciousness you normally possess. As pretenses drop off, your spirit is buoyed quietly upward and higher and a pleasant sense of tranquillity settles over you. You find that as you move and walk, people watch you hungrily, drawn to you. And you will find a delightful accident—“Divine serendipity”—that when you meet the eye of another, a spontaneous and warm smile crosses your face, and for a moment in time, your souls unite in a smile deeper than words, for indeed, words would merely get into the way and destroy the Divine simplicity of the moment. What is the secret? It is not buckling down, but loosening up: spending more time in prayer. Do not have time for prayer? An interesting paradox occurs when you first take this leap of faith, and focus—however awkwardly at first—your mind on prayer. You see, the more time you spend in prayer and contemplation, the more time you have. Indeed, you may soon conclude your clock has been ticking backward. Your life operates now not according to the world of men around you, but according to the Spirit of the God who formed you.”

I was drawn up short, for I well remembered scrawling this paragraph, and I knew it reflected the truth. My sentiments, written several months prior, were along the same lines as Laubach’s, who I had just dismissed as being overly idealistic. Today, I do not feel like his words are so foreign (in fact, I think they ring very true with many subtle implications worth expanding at a future date), but they caught me just wrong when I read them yesterday. Needless to say, I need to stop and check my own spiritual pulse from time to time, just as we all do. There are no easy answers, no spiritual supermen or wonderwomen. We have all fallen short.

And now, the entry in Devotional Classics: Selected Readings For Individuals and Groups I was at first reluctant to send though I felt it was exactly what God wanted: without further ado, here is Frank Laubach, modern-day Christian mystic. It is my prayer that his letters live on to challenge you in your steps toward the Source, Center, and Object of all affections.

God bless,
Eric

P.S. Incidentally, you might be interested in reading Words of Love by Charles L. Creegan (the source article on Kierkegaard referenced in this newsletter); you might also wish to purchase Kierkegaard’s Works of Love, the book around which much of the article centers.


Subscribe to Le Penseur Réfléchit, the Mr. Renaissance bi-weekly newsletter.

.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.

http://www.mrrena.com/2002/lau.shtml