MacDonald’s “redemptive judgement” (my term) is fascinating in this sermon. He even finds hope for Judas, which should give hope to any of us. But he also points out in this section below, that self-righteousness doesn’t spare anyone from judgement, not even us, who by comparison feel we are better than Judas:
2 Likes
That really caught my attention too.
The shrillness of my own condemning voice is often just me perhaps subconsciously condemning the same or even worse in myself.
2 Likes
Hello, Ernest!
What makes you think this? I’m not disagreeing … it just catches me a bit by surprise is all. The 1800s may have been something of a golden age or pinnacle for Scientism - and if so, do you think that would have contributed toward a cultural dismissal (if not hostility toward) everything metaphor? Whatever the reason, you’re probably right that if wouldn’t have ended well for MacDonald to be that explicit with his metaphors. Lord knows he already faced enough oppostion from his very own congregations for his own perspectives.
It still seems to be the philosophical air we breath, though these days those cultural airs are being mixed with a whole lot of other stuff that’s not one whit better.
It’s been a few years since I’ve read “Surprised by Joy” - his book about his wife, Joy. So I don’t remember all the details, but my one impression of Lewis that lingers from all that is that the Joy he and his beloved both had in each other made it worth all the grief and suffering - for both of them - many times over. He was a man deeply in love and deeply acquianted with Love.
You can get MacDonald’s “Complete Works” on Kindle or electronically at a very reasonable price. If you prefer hard copies, the Michael Phillips editions of his stories have been rendered much more readable to an American English audience. But if you can pick up and understand all the Scottish brogue that was more MacDonald’s native dialect, you can find those books online virtually for free I think. But the Phillips editions are worth it just because of their understandability. It wasn’t until this last decade that I finally “discovered” MacDonald through people of this very forum, and I’ve been reading him ever since. His novels (second or third rate as they may be in literary quality according to Lewis) are nonetheless captivating to me (as they were to Lewis) on quite other grounds.
[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:1243, topic:50194, full:true”]
(239) Free Will (starting at the very beginning of the next sermon)
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.–MATTHEW x. 26; Luke xii. 2.
God is not a God that hides, but a God that reveals. His whole work in relation to the creatures he has made–and where else can lie his work?–is revelation–the giving them truth, the showing of himself to them, that they may know him, and come nearer and nearer to him, and so he have his children more and more of companions to him. That we are in the dark about anything is never because he hides it, but because we are not yet such that he is able to reveal that thing to us.
That God could not do the thing at once which he takes time to do, we may surely say without irreverence. His will cannot finally be thwarted; where it is thwarted for a time, the very thwarting subserves the working out of a higher part of his will. He gave man the power to thwart his will, that, by means of that same power, he might come at last to do his will in a higher kind and way than would otherwise have been possible to him. God sacrifices his will to man that man may become such as himself, and give all to the truth; he makes man able to do wrong, that he may choose and love righteousness.
From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “The Final Unmasking” (239 - 249)[/quote]
I find it interesting to read MacDonald in the present day, knowing how George MacDonald faced criticism throughout his career and in the years since his passing. This is especially true because MacDonald’s theological views were considered unorthodox by some during his time and many hardliners probably have difficulties with him today. In particular, his universalist beliefs, which suggest that all people will eventually be reconciled with God, were seen as diverging from traditional Christian doctrines of eternal damnation.
At the same time, the lines that are quoted here stating what God can and can’t do has me asking what his motivation was. Obviously, he was taking the Bible literally, and laying out what he believed would be to the benefit of mankind, but he was writing at a time when there was little knowledge of other traditions, other than transmitted by Christian missionaries and often interpreted to carry biblical principles. For me this means that he was writing with a limited vision, unable to see left or right, and his writing style and use of imagery seems to be overly sentimental or verbose, with a heavy reliance on allegory and symbolism.
Despite my criticism, George MacDonald’s works continue to be appreciated by many readers and literary enthusiasts for their imaginative depth and spiritual insights, but I find that the momentum of his writing, the forcefulness with which he formulates, sometimes overbearing. I have found many statements that would serves well as quotes, but often the quote in context has that brunt to it. What appealed to me more than anything was his exploration of complex moral and spiritual themes like in his novel “Lilith,” although I have heard that some people missed the kind of straightforward moral guidance that they were hoping for.
For me the biblical narrative is a collection of narratives worked into a history for Israel, as well as an anthology of religious themes, all with profound messages, but which become contradictory when taken literally. I see also mythology, legend, and symbolism, which also need to be appreciated for what they are, extending into the NT. We also have to take into account that the expansion of Christianity from its Semitic origins to different cultural contexts has led to significant cultural shifts over time. It spread across various regions and encountered diverse cultures, it naturally underwent adaptations and transformations that were influenced by the cultural, philosophical, and linguistic contexts of those regions.
Therefore, the view of MacDonald is a valuable insight into the creative religious mind, but needs to be viewed critically with regard with what we have come to know since his death.
1 Like
Uh. Thank you for your nice reply 
I think, In the 1800s it was much the same as now, just the other way around, perhaps a little better. I often think Proclus was the eclipse of civilization…anyway, the problem wasn’t atheists, its was other Christians. For myself, really I don’t mind what other people choose to believe as long as the soul is in the right place. I don’t even know why the afterlife matters so much to so many people, I mean they run around trumpeting John 3:16 when Jesus said it to pahrisee who visited him in private, at night, frightened he’d be found out. I understand das consolation, but then it turned into a donkey’s carrot,but so what, if you want to believe in it fine. If you don’t, fine, and everyone gets angry at me for saying that all the time…THEN what happens is, when people insist on that others believe EITHER in increasingly unlikely supernatural events OR that nothing else exists but boring atoms, that emotions get intensified on both sides, and people get increasingly defensive about whatever position they take on it.
So as the age of enlightenment progressed, theists got very defensive. Now we are suffering from a lack of morality, and atheists are very defensive. A minority from both sides get hostile, which makes matter worse, in a kind of systemic racism–some people use beliefs in very bad ways, so everyone with the belief is evil. We went to war with Hussein for no better reason than Bush Jr. called his father’s worst enemy satain incarnate, and the parades of the righteous right stormed in and killed 2 million children, according to UNICEF. by bombing dams and electricity supplies, resulting in no drinking water, then cholera, typhoid, and starvation. That’s holy war in the 21st century, And we haven’;t seen the end of it yet, because people still are doing this systemic racism against beliefs. On all sides. So IO think its getting worse. Macdonald didn’t really have it as bad as we do now, in my opinion. Not many see it as I do, but there are some.
Anyway, Lewis I agree took it very well, I did try reading surprised by joy, and I know he felt he grew from the experience, but it just seemed such an awful thing to happen to him, that’s all. Life is life. And that’s my three word profundity of the day lol. Good night, hope to see you again
3 Likes
I think this one is about his conversion. The joy is his unexpected joy in God. (It’s one of the few of Lewis’s books I’ve read.) I love the part about how he unexpectedly found himself believing God on his way from one place to another. I quoted it around here somewhere. ……
Ah, yes, here:
5 Likes
Right, this was his autobiographical book. I remember being surprised by the British boarding school culture he described that he attended. Not part of the joy, by the way.
3 Likes
Wow … So now I can’t remember what book it was that I did read about his relationship. And apparently I haven’t read the Surprised by Joy book at all then! Embarrassing!
Thanks for the corrections though.
2 Likes
It is a totally common one…just met someone else with the same thing. Sure appreciate your knowledge and discussion on both Macdonald and him and his friends.
2 Likes
(248) Justice and Revenge
There is no satisfaction of revenge possible to the injured. The severest punishment that can be inflicted upon the wrong-doer is simply to let him know what he is; for his nature is of God, and the deepest in him is the divine. Neither can any other punishment than the sinner’s being made to see the enormity of his injury, give satisfaction to the injured. While the wronger will admit no wrong, while he mocks at the idea of amends, or while, admitting the wrong, he rejoices in having done it, no suffering could satisfy revenge, far less justice. Both would continually know themselves foiled. Therefore, while a satisfied justice is an unavoidable eternal event, a satisfied revenge is an eternal impossibility. For the moment that the sole adequate punishment, a vision of himself, begins to take true effect upon the sinner, that moment the sinner has begun to grow a righteous man, and the brother human whom he has offended has no choice, has nothing left him but to take the offender to his bosom–the more tenderly that his brother is a repentant brother, that he was dead and is alive again, that he was lost and is found. Behold the meeting of the divine extremes–the extreme of punishment, the embrace of heaven! They run together; ‘the wheel is come full circle.’ For, I venture to think, there can be no such agony for created soul, as to see itself vile–vile by its own action and choice. Also I venture to think there can be no delight for created soul–short, that is, of being one with the Father–so deep as that of seeing the heaven of forgiveness open, and disclose the shining stair that leads to its own natural home, where the eternal father has been all the time awaiting this return of his child.
From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “The Final Unmasking ”
3 Likes
@yofiel, You’ll find George MacDonald’s books digitized (transcribed, not just ORC’ed) at Project Gutenberg, and
digitized (scanned and/or ORC’ed) at Internet Archive. Links to these are over in this thread:
Many printed versions are available at Amazon and other book sellers, but it’s worth it to pay attention to the publisher. Many older works like his are published by low-quality fly-by-night places. Look for publishers like Penguin or Dover, etc.
3 Likes
This is my favorite part of this sermon, specifically what I had in mind, when I suggested “redemptive judgement.”
Our worst impulse — that deep-seated, woven-in, gut-driven, evolutionarily-granted NEED for vengeance — is utterly thwarted, but in the most deeply satisfying way. (Mud pies <=> holiday at the sea)*
This image of God refusing to give his child the thing that seems most desirable, intolerable to live without even, and giving something so much better — more righteousness, more love, another one to love, more redemption — shows the baseness of the desire for revenge in contrast to the wisdom and goodness of God.
I am frustrated that MacDonald’s ideas expressed here and elsewhere, so different from what is commonly held as orthodox, seem more philosophically grounded than scripturally. Much like Kierkegaard’s sermons (the very few I’ve read), it seems like both men are taking a verse and spinning it out, ignoring contrary scriptural evidence. I hate to say: cherry-picking. On the other hand, I think most any position could be criticized as “cherry picking,” requiring one to ignore certain parts of Scripture in favor of others one’s position favors as relevant to the topic. And that IS a philosophical foundation for a theological conclusion.
Hermeneutical debates aside for now, I love this part of this sermon, and find it helps temper others like “Consuming Fire.”
Thanks for working your way through this book with us, Merv. I haven’t been able to give it all the attention I’d like to, but I’ve learned a lot.
*[Sorry math people. “<=>” is my personal note-taking convention for “in opposition to”. I see it has an “official meaning” as well.]
3 Likes
Any place you see him doing this, please point it out to me! Because GM seems like one of the most scripturally grounded authors I’ve ever had the privilege of reading! Which is ironic, given that he isn’t even aiming for that at all … he has his sights set on Christ, and scriptures “merely” happen to be one of his most direct accesses to Christ’s teachings and the testimonies about him from the apostles. In my point of view, GM ends up (biblically) surpassing the hosts of believers today with all their noisy contests to see who can build the highest pedestals for “the Bible”, and as a result their actual knowledge and actual application of it ends up shipwrecked - blown onto the reefs by every ideological wind that comes along, while authors like GM appear to have just quietly and studiously studied, read, and observed everything they could. I know he isn’t perfect - and I occasionally run across a scriptural passage and wonder to myself “How did GM engage with that?!” So I don’t mean to hold him up as perfect - as he himself would be the first to staunchly forbid in any case. But he just seems so much more scripturally grounded than nearly every other popular Christian voice these days.
I really love this sermon too - and in particular, along with you, - this thought about God offering us something so much infinitely higher than the vengeance that tastes so immediately sweet in our mouths.
1 Like
Not wanting to start a Bible Drill War. At all!
But MacDonald clearly rejects eternal conscious torment, which Jesus warned about without negating that I can tell. That’s a tough one for me. (I should probably just quietly go back and review the Universalism threads.)
MacDonald seems to deal with it philosophically, based on his understanding of God’s character. I could be persuaded, but how does one argue that with the folks in the pew next to me, who see the view as counterscriptural and dangerous?
Part of the matter is probably tradition and the paradigm of interpretation that one is familiar with. It’s not an easy thing to evaluate another paradigm without knowing the whole thing and evaluating it as a whole, also examining what seems to be left out for the sake of the paradigm. That would be true, I think, of any. But that really is the work of a life time as well.
2 Likes
Was that The Problem with Pain? I have not read it, but vaguely remember it being in part about his wife’s death.
2 Likes
Maybe that was it. I’ll have to look it up once I’m back home tonight - since I’m curious what my memory’s been doing with such things now.
I hear you! And following in the spirit of GM, I have no interest in trying to start one either. He never seemed interested in provoking protests or getting in anybody’s face about any of this. His only besetting “sin” is that he quite passionately holds his own dearly bought convictions so strongly that they can’t help but shine through as he writes on things dear to his heart.
2 Likes
Bible Drills! Never participated but I have vague recollection of what those might be?
Not to get into a long side-discussion about models of hell, but F.Y.I. I think Jesus’s descriptions are also consistent with “Annihilation” and don’t lock one in to Eternal Conscious Torment. I do agree that Jesus’s warnings seem harder to reconcile with Universalism… I should also read up more about it.
4 Likes
I should also add that one of GM’s strongest passions - so it seems to me - is that he refuses to entertain any possibility that the God we worship could be involved in doing anything that would be considered unrighteous if we ourselves did it (with all the same full knowledge of everything involved of course). All GM would allow of this is that at most he would only admit “…then there must be something of this that I do not yet understand, which if I did, I would see God’s righteousness in it.” He thought it infinitely better to insist that God will never do anything unrighteous (and thereby be mistaken on some point because you could not see all sides and outcomes of it) than to willingly attribute unrighteousness to God. The latter (to GM) was the equivalent of being willing to worship a demon.
3 Likes
(249) Recognition Hereafter
…awaiting this return of his child.
So, friends, how ever indignant we may be, however intensely and however justly we may feel our wrongs, there is no revenge possible for us in the universe of the Father. I may say to myself with heartiest vengeance, ‘I should just like to let that man see what a wretch he is–what all honest men at this moment think of him!’ but, the moment come, the man will loathe himself tenfold more than any other man could, and that moment my heart will bury his sin. Its own ocean of pity will rush from the divine depths of its God-origin to overwhelm it. Let us try to forethink, to antedate our forgiveness. Dares any man suppose that Jesus would have him hate the traitor through whom he came to the cross? Has he been pleased through all these ages with the manner in which those calling themselves by his name have treated, and are still treating his nation? We have not yet sounded the depths of forgiveness that are and will be required of such as would be his disciples!
Our friends will know us then: for their joy, will it be, or their sorrow? Will their hearts sink within them when they look on the real likeness of us? Or will they rejoice to find that we were not so much to be blamed as they thought, in this thing or that which gave them trouble?
Let us remember, however, that not evil only will be unveiled; that many a masking misconception will uncover a face radiant with the loveliness of the truth. And whatever disappointments may fall, there is consolation for every true heart in the one sufficing joy–that it stands on the border of the kingdom, about to enter into ever fuller, ever-growing possession of the inheritance of the saints in light.
From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “The Final Unmasking ”
This entry concludes Lewis’ quotes from this particular sermon, and is in fact, the conclusion of the sermon.
One of my own struggles with this whole concept of the full disclosure and complete transparency of judgment is that I know I have held, at least in passing, many a thought of criticism, judgment, or what could only be taken (by the unknowing subject if they saw my mind completely) as outright contempt for something about themselves. And yet I bury those thoughts of mine with shame because I know how hurtful (and unproductive) they would be, in many cases against people I love. So I try (only partially successfully) to consider the problem to be mine and not theirs. I know that isn’t always true, and psychologists have long had a field day calling this out as a dangerous practice of repressing bad things that must eventually emerge anyway - probably in yet more explosive or destructive ways because of all the prior containment. Of course there is much truth in that, and things should not be allowed to fester. But … every negative thought? Really?! I don’t want people to see themselves as I sometimes see them through my own fallen eyes - I want to see them with eyes of love, and if on judgment day - every last thought of criticism I had ever entertained about another is to be brought out for everyone’s inspection, then the resulting torments would not be mine alone. It’s because of love that I don’t want to hurt them, and yet … wouldn’t I want to know the truth about how people perceive me, even as painful as that might be for me? Wouldn’t I hope that anything provoking their contempt of me might be cast out of my redeemed self? I suppose that not only will we have total transparency with each other, but we will all also have much thicker skins about our former selves and the weaknesses we harbored, many of which would rightly provoke contempt from others. From our fully sanctified perspectives, I’m guessing that we ourselves will no longer feel any insecurity and will be the first to be able to see ourselves as we were and (as MacDonald says) “loath those hurtful parts of our former selves tenfold more than any others possibly could.” But it still doesn’t sit right that, in the service of some sort of finally shared “omniscience”, all old wounds should be made fresh again.
And I do think many such things can already be forgotten, even while we still live in the flesh to work on it. Hence the urgency of leaving one’s gift at the altar to go and take care of more urgent matters - either literally with one’s brother, or even figuratively dealing with unworthy thoughts in ourselves that do need eternal burial more than they need public airing. That’s my hope, anyway - that love will cover over a multitude of sins.
2 Likes
(250) From Dante
To have a share in any earthly inheritance, is to diminish the share of the other inheritors. In the inheritance of the saints, that which each has, goes to increase the possession of the rest.
From MacDonald’s final unspoken sermon “The Inheritance” (The source of entries 250-257)
2 Likes