These are quotes from NW
the hand is NW (which, I believe, is not only life’s hardships seen through God, but also Death). Macdonald and Twain both lost daughters.
“How kind you are, North Wind!’
'I am only just. All kindness is but justice. We owe it.”
― George MacDonald, At the Back of the North Wind
“I wish I had [made that song]. No, I don’t That would be to take it from somebody else. But it’s mine for all that.’
‘What makes it yours?’
‘I love it so.’
‘Does loving a thing make it yours?’
‘I think so, Mother – at least more than anything else can. . . . Love makes the only myness,’ said Diamond.”
I do like “The Golden Key” and the “Princess” books better.
“There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection.”
“It is a great privilege to be poor, Peter. You must not mistake, however, and imagine it a virtue; it is but a privilege, and one also that may be terribly misused.”
I’ve got a few sea stories! The GI Bill was a good thing for finishing school after I gave Rickover’s Nuclear Navy six years, and the training was good for a lot of other things as well.
I’ve shared somewhere here not too long ago (found it) that I skipped rocks on Loch Ness that same trip, having rented a car in Glasgow while we were in port at Faslane (HMNB Clyde), and then again when my wife and I were there 20 years ago.
Can it be any comfort to them to be told that God loves them so that he will burn them clean. Can the cleansing of the fire appear to them anything beyond what it must always, more or less, be–a process of torture? They do not want to be clean, and they cannot bear to be tortured. Can they then do other, or can we desire that they should do other, than fear God, even with the fear of the wicked, until they learn to love him with the love of the holy. To them Mount Sinai is crowned with the signs of vengeance. And is not God ready to do unto them even as they fear, though with another feeling and a different end from any which they are capable of supposing? He is against sin: in so far as, and while, they and sin are one, he is against them–against their desires, their aims, their fears, and their hopes; and thus he is altogether and always for them .
Those last couple of words in that last sentence (…“and always for them”) is what separates MacDonald from the traditional damnationism that has been so rampantly embraced by Christianity over the last centuries. It is the difference between a demonic god and a loving One; the difference between taking a few proof-texts out of scripture vs. following its entire arc.
Those last few words caught my attention, Merv. MacDonald’s redemptive view of this type of suffering (I think that would be the right word) certainly stands out.
As well as your comment here. I know you and @Randy hold views on this that I just don’t know much about and it’s been discussed here in numerous threads. I think I’d better start digging around and reading. I don’t know enough about what you think to say or even ask anything about it.
Thanks for these readings. And thanks for included the expanded context. I think that’s really more valuable.
It catches the attention of some in a “hopeful” sort of way, and of others in a red flag sort of way, because it sounds suspiciously like universalism, which (as I think you suspect and allude to) is one of those red-flag heresy words for many. And not just because they’ve been taught that and often have an arsenal of scriptural quotations at the ready to put it down, but because it is scandalous … to all of us. All you have to do is protest “well, what about ______” - insert your favorite bad boy from history or personal experience. (Usually Hitler will do as history’s generic go-to evil man.) We’ve even had people right here on this site voice what many actually think, even if they won’t say it out loud all the time, and that is: "Well - if he’s in heaven, then that’s not a place I would want to be.
I certainly do have my feelings about this (of course feeling all that scandal I just described). I don’t represent Biologos, much less any other wider group of Christians - only myself - as I perceive the challenge of the implications for what MacDonald recognizes in Christ’s life and teachings. It isn’t easy, and most cultural Christianity today won’t go that far. To them (or I should say, most of us), Christ’s love (God’s love) has de facto limits.
[And just to be clear - I’m not making any claims about how or if MacDonald would own these labels at all. My sense of him is that he is happy to leave such questions where they belong, in Christ’s hands, and attend to the only thing any Christ follower needs to know: what does Christ want me to do here and now? And such obedience does not typically include anything like the command: “discern for all time and categories of people who ends up where.” It’s a question that stems from a deficiency of trust that our Creator will get things quite right without our ‘help’.]
I’ll confess to both types of attention, because I’ve never heard (until very recently) anything remotely resembling universalism that also included essentials of Christianity. But the hopefulness carried the greater weight.
Here and now often feel like more than enough. Eternal things that are beyond my control–it’s overwhelming. Simply easier not to “go there.”
I understand these things, but I think you were wise to repeat them here:
I agree with you and Mervin. It’s sometimes hard to understand, but I think if you’ve ever read “The Great Divorce” by CS lewis, or else the last chapter in “Mere Christianity,” or even if you get to see the last portion of “The Last Battle,”, these all reflect McDonald’s quite strongly. I read that Dorothy Sayers was one of the Christian intellectuals who found McDonald’s reasoning about ultimate Justice and reconciliation to be a reason she stayed in the Christian faith. I don’t think it is universalism as we think of it …more like supernatural patience. JPM referenced an explanation to me.
Beck’s description of Macdonald’s writing compasses my understanding in nearly a nutshell here, too…that he was full of goodness
God wants to save us from sin. Not the consequences of sin
I think it’s a severe mercy, like in Sheldon VanAuken well put.
Why did these novels from the dustbin of literary history so affect me? Two reasons. First was MacDonald’s view of sin and grace and the refining and inescapable love of God. Many of MacDonald’s protagonists make horrible mistakes. And their salvation is this slow journey though the purifying love of God. Sin is “forgiven” in MacDonald’s novels when the character embraces the harsh consequences of sin and moves through that painful fire. Salvation isn’t a simple “forgiveness,” avoiding God’s consequences for sin. In fact, the worst thing possible, the real hell, is NOT suffering the consequences sin. Salvation, in short, is about character formation. And this formation must, absolutely must, involve removing sin from our hearts and minds. God, I learned from MacDonald, wants us to be clean. Not pseudo-clean, not bait and switch clean, not imputed righteousness clean, not “God sees Jesus and not me” clean, but really, truly clean. You and I, finally, coming into the love of God and becoming the people we were created to be. And you have to go through the purifying fires of hell to get there. God wants to save us from sin. Not the consequences of sin.
The second thing that affected me about MacDonald’s novels were his protagonists. Despite MacDonald’s religious slant his protagonists were, conspicuously, devoid of religiosity. And yet, these characters were rooted in faith. What shows through most clearly is their virtue, not their piety. Most of the time the characters are lower class, but the way they carry themselves is almost regal. There is something inside them that just glows from the inside out. Moral integrity is their defining feature. And kindness. And courage. And a simple, easy unpretentiousness, feeling at home in one’s skin and with anyone in the world, king or tramp. And that’s how I define Christ-likeness to this day: Moral integrity, kindness, courage, lack of overt religiosity, simple manners, unpretentiousness, at ease with rich and poor. In short, I saw a vision of Christ in MacDonald’s characters. The plot lines were goofy, but I loved the Christ-likeness of the characters. They showed me ways to be like Jesus in my day to day interactions with others. I wanted to be like the characters in the stories.
Maybe I’m not saying this right…he certainly does mean mercy, too
What an interesting blog overall — Experimental Theology. I think I’ve seen Phil mention it. Maybe you or Merv, too?
Good posts you shared. THank you.
Edited to add:
I finished the articles this morning, and they were interesting. A very different view than I am familiar with. Reading these clarifies much of the little I have read (or more likely heard quoted) by Lewis as well. I have really only read a few things by him myself.
I am a bit concerned that MacDonald is employing a strawman in his description of PSA, but many of his concerns seem legitimate nonetheless. I am not attempting here to begin a discussion of PSA;there are plenty of threads for me to read through, but am only attempting to respond to MacDonald as quoted in the blog posts.
I understand that Lewis is seen to have held to some view of purgatory, and I understand how, knowing of his interest in MacDonald.
Thanks for much good food for thought.
I echo Kendel’s gratitude for your links above, Randy - and will let those stand in for today’s addition here, because they are worthy of that attention. And also because I discovered that in sharing the more complete thought of MacDonald’s yesterday, I inadverdently included much of what Lewis had put down for the next day under the heading “Sinai.” And just to include the rest of what Lewis wrote there, I will include it below.
… He is altogether and always for them. That thunder and lightning and tempest, that blacknes torn with the sound of a trumpet, that visible horror billowed with the voice of words, was all but a faint image…of what God thinks and feels against vileness and selfishness, of the unrest of unassuageable repulsion with which He regards such conditions.
Thanks, @Kendel .I am so sorry for all the posts; there tis no need to read it all. I agree … I enjoyed @Paraleptopecten ’ article very much and discussed its theme with my wife.
For, when we say that God is Love, do we teach men that their fear of him is groundless? No. As much as they fear will come upon them, possibly far more. But there is something beyond their fear,–a divine fate which they cannot withstand, because it works along with the human individuality which the divine individuality has created in them. The wrath will consume what they call themselves; so that the selves God made shall appear, coming out with tenfold consciousness of being, and bringing with them all that made the blessedness of the life the men tried to lead without God.
Thanks. I was discussing with my mom the other day how I remember, as a very young boy (maybe 3 or so), testing my parents’ good will when they told me to do something by looking my dad in the eye and saying, “No!”. Interestingly, the spanking I got really converted me. I suddenly identified more with their goals, and I had very few spankings the rest of my life!. Everyone is different, but the fear of my father’s spank (as much as I loved him) changed my relationship, as Coriakin hopefully was able to change the relationship with his Dufflepuds.
well put.