This is a collection of unrelated stories, mostly about St. Francis, but also some concerning his first twelve followers. Some illustrate Francis’ dedication to poverty: as he was dying, he took of his robe and undergarments and gave them back to Order; one of the brothers then gave them back on loan, and Francis rejoiced that he was able to stay with Lady Poverty until the end. Brother Elias and some others, however, wanted to relax the rule of absolute poverty, and come to him saying as much at the annual meeting. Francis, frustrated, asked God, who spoke audibly that this was the lifestyle he desired of the order. There were a few stories of miraculous provision, such as when the brothers arrived for the annual meeting, and townspeople brought them all food.

Other stories concern similar aspects of Francis’ character. One evening Francis and a brother were at church without a breviary to pray the Hours, so Francis said they would pray like this: he commanded the brother to tell him something to the effect of, “Francis, you are the worst sinner”. The brother agreed, but instead prophesied that he would be saved into heaven (that is, heaven directly, not purgatory). Francis, annoyed, told him again, but again prophesied something similar. This repeated a couple times. Here we see Francis’ humility as well as God confirming his holiness. (However, based on the text, Francis seems to have been closer to self-hatred that true humility. One could also see this as God suggesting to Francis a different opinion of himself, which Francis seems to have rejected.) There are also several stories where, in the early days before his reputation was well-known, Francis, as well a different brother, later, joyfully endures the copious scorn of the people, who think he is a miserable beggar. Although not stated, the reason for their joyfulness is that they are training (and indeed, reached) to be the kind of person who returns good for evil.

Francis clearly spent a lot of time praying, and from the stories, he seems to have prayed for the brothers a lot. Several brothers were oppressed by demons, to the point that they had resolved to leave the Order, but that day Francis spoke to them prophetically and delivered them of the oppression. After Francis’ death, some of the first brothers also prophesied in similar manner. As spiritual leader of the Order, Francis saw himself as spiritual shepherd, and later in his life, when many in the Order made it clear that they did not want to follow his absolute poverty, he told them to elect someone else lead, as he could not be a shepherd to people who were unwilling to follow. After his death, several of the original brothers, who were in charge of a Place (essentially in the role of an abbot), prophesied similarly.

There are a couple of stories of Francis talking with animals. Probably the most well-known is him talking to the wolf that was terrorizing a town, making an agreement with it for the villagers to feed it and in return it would not kill any more people. The wolf made a sign of submission. He told it to follow him into the town, and he repeated the agreement in the square with all the people watching. The people agreed and the wolf again made a sign of submission. Thereafter the people fed the wolf and it acted tame for the next two years until it died. Francis also preached a sermon to the birds, telling them that they should praise God, and listed a number of reasons why they should praise God. They birds tweeted at this, and they listened until he gave the blessing at the end, then they flew off. One of the brothers was sent to preach in southern Italy, and in one of the villages the people were so uninterested in hearing the gospel that he told them he would preach to the fishes instead. They mocked him, but he went down to the shore, and preached to the fishes, who lined up smallest in front and biggest in the back, mouths out of the water, listening until the blessing. Afterwards the townspeople were humbled and listened to his message, with many being saved.

Francis’ lifestyle of complete poverty as a means of depending on God proved to be something that many members of the Order were not prepared to live out. Brother Elias, one of the original twelve followers, was the leader of these, and his proposal was rejected by Francis and God. After Francis’ death, the Church hierarchy redefined the vow of poverty such that individual friars must own nothing (except for one habit, and sandals if necessary), but the Order itself could own property which the friars could make use of. So there seems to have been a split after Francis’ death, with a few friars demonstrating that Francis’ lifestyle was livable, while the majority reduced it. The official biographies of Francis were apparently written by the Church hierarchy and its pharisaical redefinition of poverty, while The Little Flowers was written by one of the group wanting to keep Francis’ lifestyle. So it records not only Brother Elias’ rejection of his less radical poverty by God at the annual meeting, but it also records Francis prophesying that Elias will die outside the order and not be saved. Elias asked Francis to pray for him, and he said that he would be saved in the end. According to the text, Brother Elias ended up taking sides with a local noble against some papal decree, resulting in his excommunication, but as he was close to death, a friar visited him, learned the situation, and went to the Pope to plead for the excommunication to be lifted, which it was. The friar returned to Brother Elias shortly before he died. Thus, the book could be construed as an attack on the official Church stance on how to live as a Franciscan Friar.

The Little Flowers of St. Francis is a good collection of stories which encourage the reader to desire greater devotion to God. Throughout the stories Francis is shown clearly following God as totally as he can. In his mind, complete dependence on God required complete poverty. Perhaps this was in response to a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words (as St. Anthony the Great), or just a youthful rejection of his father (and his own previous) luxurious lifestyle. Regardless of whether one agrees with this lifestyle, his clear devotion to God is a challenge to imitate him in greater dependence on God. For those attracted by his miracles, many of them are clearly related to the amount of time he spent in prayer, as well as his concern for his fellow friars—the prophetic messages of his that are recorded are all for the benefit of the sheep under his care. If one wants more prophetic words, St. Francis’ example encourages us to be the kind of person who is so concerned for others the we listen to God on their behalf.

Little Flowers seems inspired by Pope Gregory the Great, who wrote Dialogues as collection of “flowers"—stories about contemporary (to the 550s) Italians who had performed miracles, to illustrate that it was not just the great, old saints. Book Two, the flowers about St. Benedict, is very similar to The Little Flowers of St. Francis. (Fortunately, the author of Little Flowers spares us Gregory’s moralizing.) It is also similar to the Gospels, which relate various anecdotes and sayings about Jesus that illustrate his teaching. The Gospels have a clear structure and purpose however, while Little Flowers lacks an obvious organizing structure. It does fairly explicitly compare Francis to Christ, though: Francis received a call from God to rebuild his church, lived a mendicant life of poverty, acquired twelve initial followers, and fasted 40 days (alone on an island, for Lent, although he ate half a loaf of bread in order to be lesser than Christ).

Any hagiography raises the question about the miracles. Having experienced many myself, as well as having heard many verifiable stories in the present, I am inclined to believe the miracles unless there is a good reason otherwise. I am unconvinced that the fishes arranged themselves in rows by size to listen to the sermon, but I think it likely that something happened. I am more inclined to believe the story about the wolf—the miracle part is the wolf understanding Francis, but everything else, such as a wolf acting subservient, and acting friendly when fed, seem entirely consistent with canine behavior. It seems incredible that Brother Elias and his posse would still reject Francis’ lifestyle after hearing the audible voice of God, but Israel did it too. And in the story, Elias and company leave and do not pursue the motion, at least not directly, so they must have been convinced by something.

On the question of poverty, I think that Francis’ extreme poverty is not an example we should emulate unless specifically called. So how to square that with God saying to Brother Elias & Co. that his will was poverty as Francis understood it? On the same principle of the keys of Peter, namely that the apostles were given free make rabbinic binding/loosing decisions on what is allowed in the Messianic community, it seems to me that God is confirming that in Francis’ organization, he desires Francis’ values to apply. I do not think we can take God as saying that extreme poverty is the best way of living, or even as the best monastic way of living, but rather that if you want to live in Francis’ organization, you need to follow his rules. Or, another way, if you want to follow Francis, then you need to follow Francis completely, not in half measures. Brother Elias and company, it seems to me, were trying to get the benefits of Francis without the cost of complete reliance on God, or perhaps rather without the complete dedication of their lives to God with the use of poverty as the discipline to enable that. I think it is entirely possible to completely dedicate one’s life to God without extreme poverty (although the discipline of generosity is surely required); in fact, I think it may be a more difficult path than Francis', albeit more comfortable. But if you want to be a Franciscan Friar, it seems to me that God is saying that you need to embrace extreme poverty. There was nothing stopping Elias from becoming a Benedictine, who were quite okay with the kind of poverty he was suggesting, it’s just that Francis was clearly the hot thing in Christianity, while the Benedictines were seen as indolent. (The fact that every couple hundred years a new Benedictine order was founded to get back to the basics, including a proper monastic austerity, suggests that Francis may have been right to insist on organizational poverty as well as individual poverty, since history repeatedly demonstrates the Benedictine slide into organizational opulence.)

In the physical realm, I find Franciscan devotion to be a model to avoid rather than emulate. His fundamentalist impulse of literal poverty, his lack of value for his body, and his inability to see his virtues (or, also likely, a fear of pride), are serious flaws. Literal poverty may have been necessary for Francis, as the book has his state, given his history as a wealthy merchant’s son and a youth of indolence. However, as a rule of life, much less as a virtue, it was clearly unworkable even in his day. How can we live in the Promised Land, flowing with milk and honey, if we cannot handle prosperity? Furthermore, how are we to learn to be co-kings with Christ—who has a cattle on a thousand hills (or, in modern terms, money in a thousand investment accounts) if we cannot steward riches? Francis’ abuse of his body is empirically foolish—he died early, around age 45. How can we take what God said was “very good” and abuse it? Francis would presumably been appalled at treating a real donkey like he treated himself; if this is the case while an animal, then why is it okay to abuse Brother Ass? Nor does it have any value in restraining sin: Paul notes this, and Francis did not seem to think he was advancing in righteousness despite abusing Brother Ass. Finally, I think there is something wrong when God overrides a Brother’s mouth to prophetically contradict Francis’ desires—which happened multiple times in a row!—yet he seems to not have been able to accept it.

Nonetheless, I find the example of Francis to be compelling, and I feel Holy Spirit when I read this account. Here is someone who was completely devoted to God, and someone who took concrete steps (by means of disciplines) to produce the character and lifestyle that he understood God to leading. If he was mistaken due to flaws in his culture’s understanding of righteousness and youthful reactionary impulse, well so what? He clearly succeeded in devoting his life to God. His disciplines worked for him, and they worked for the brothers whose flowers were included in the book. He did rebuild God’s Church as God asked (in addition to the physical church near Assisi, when he interpreted God’s request literally). He was an example of righteousness that all could see. I want to be that kind of person, that people are compelled to imitate. I want to be that kind of person, that cares enough of about other people that God shares what they need with me. I want to be that kind of person that is close enough to God that even nature senses. Is Francis a model to avoid? Yes. But is he a success? Very much so, and he is still a great example to imitate, which encourages me to find a way to imitate his success with a healthier package.