"Freedom of poverty"
I am reading this morning from a book called Mother Teresa No Greater Love. In it she expounds upon truths in a way I've never looked at before. In the chapter entitled On Jesus she says, "Chastity does not simply mean that I am not married. It means that I love Christ with an undivided love. It is something deeper, something living, something real. It is to love Him with undivided, loving chastity through the freedom of poverty."
I have had to read that paragraph so many times, and that's one of the easiest I must say, because the concept is just so foreign to me. I must confess I had thought about the poverty of poverty but never the freedom of poverty. What I'm getting ready to say, has put a whole new slant on the words "the love of money is the root of all evil."
To grasp what she means by the freedom of poverty, I've had to think about it by, I guess, a process of downward thinking. I've had to take those words "freedom of poverty" to their furthest conclusion and just let my mind rest on that phrase so long that I've come to the conclusion that this must be what she means.
From "poverty" I visualize a person downtown living under the bridge or someone in Chicago, who I saw three years ago, sleeping on the steps of a church building, high up on the steps in the darkness so no one could see him easily, living on the streets or in buses that transported people around the city, where he could be warm and out of the elements.
From that I see no possessions, no family, no decisions, nothing except a person living with the question "how will I live today?"
From that I see a complete dependence on someone else to provide for everything.
From that I see me. I see a home, a car, a husband, a career, money, a family, an extended family, friends, a church, possessions, clothes, dreams, a future, an image, a lifestyle.
From there I see entanglement.
From entanglement I see decisions.
From decisions I see options.
From options I see frustration.
From frustration I see pain.
From pain I see the garden.
From the garden I see sin.
From sin I see God.
From God I see love.
and the cycle begins again and I have a choice of who to love.
Then I see a child.
I see freedom.
I see innocence.
I see hope.
I see faith.
I see trust.
I see a complete and utter dependence on someone else, mom or dad...whom they love.
I see the truth of Jesus's words "Except you become as a little child, you will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven." Little children love and they love freely. They have no time constraints. They have no needs that they worry about because all their needs, they believe, are provided by momma and daddy. They cry out and they're fed. They take steps and we applaud. They reach out and we take. Isn't that another reason to be as a little child? Would not our "serving" be easier if we knew that all our needs would be provided by our daddy or pappa as "Abba" means? If when we cried we were fed? We took steps and were applauded? We reached out and were taken? Isn't that what Jesus means when he says " do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink: or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" ....... "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, [Jesus says] and all these things will be given to you as well." Children do not worry about tomorrow. They live, they love, they laugh, they play, because they are not entangled...except with their sole providers.
Would it not be easier for me to serve if I were not entangled...except with my soul's provider?
I think Paul got it when he said to the Corinthians "...sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything." I think that must have been what Mother Teresa meant.
I have had to read that paragraph so many times, and that's one of the easiest I must say, because the concept is just so foreign to me. I must confess I had thought about the poverty of poverty but never the freedom of poverty. What I'm getting ready to say, has put a whole new slant on the words "the love of money is the root of all evil."
To grasp what she means by the freedom of poverty, I've had to think about it by, I guess, a process of downward thinking. I've had to take those words "freedom of poverty" to their furthest conclusion and just let my mind rest on that phrase so long that I've come to the conclusion that this must be what she means.
From "poverty" I visualize a person downtown living under the bridge or someone in Chicago, who I saw three years ago, sleeping on the steps of a church building, high up on the steps in the darkness so no one could see him easily, living on the streets or in buses that transported people around the city, where he could be warm and out of the elements.
From that I see no possessions, no family, no decisions, nothing except a person living with the question "how will I live today?"
From that I see a complete dependence on someone else to provide for everything.
From that I see me. I see a home, a car, a husband, a career, money, a family, an extended family, friends, a church, possessions, clothes, dreams, a future, an image, a lifestyle.
From there I see entanglement.
From entanglement I see decisions.
From decisions I see options.
From options I see frustration.
From frustration I see pain.
From pain I see the garden.
From the garden I see sin.
From sin I see God.
From God I see love.
and the cycle begins again and I have a choice of who to love.
Then I see a child.
I see freedom.
I see innocence.
I see hope.
I see faith.
I see trust.
I see a complete and utter dependence on someone else, mom or dad...whom they love.
I see the truth of Jesus's words "Except you become as a little child, you will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven." Little children love and they love freely. They have no time constraints. They have no needs that they worry about because all their needs, they believe, are provided by momma and daddy. They cry out and they're fed. They take steps and we applaud. They reach out and we take. Isn't that another reason to be as a little child? Would not our "serving" be easier if we knew that all our needs would be provided by our daddy or pappa as "Abba" means? If when we cried we were fed? We took steps and were applauded? We reached out and were taken? Isn't that what Jesus means when he says " do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink: or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" ....... "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, [Jesus says] and all these things will be given to you as well." Children do not worry about tomorrow. They live, they love, they laugh, they play, because they are not entangled...except with their sole providers.
Would it not be easier for me to serve if I were not entangled...except with my soul's provider?
I think Paul got it when he said to the Corinthians "...sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything." I think that must have been what Mother Teresa meant.
Comments