MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

Then fasten your seatbelt and hold on to that one for a bit … because here come the next two. I’ll put two out here this morning because I feel like the first one is repeating a theme he’s already hammered on a lot in these last ones from this sermon.

(114) Agree Quickly

Arrange your matters with those who have anything against you, while you are yet together and things have not gone too far to be arranged; you will have to do it , and that under less easy circumstances than now. Putting off is of no use. You must. The thing has to be done; there are means of compelling you.

And the following excerpt follows directly on the heals of the above. I included much more than Lewis did below - and it is a great example of MacDonald’s dialogical style. His writing is host to an imaginary conversation between a mentor and a questioner. He often lapses into this without warning, leading readers sometimes into temporary confusion. But in the following it is especially obvious.

(115) Duties to an Enemy

‘In this affair, however, I am in the right.’

‘If so, very well–for this affair. But I have reason to doubt whether you are capable of judging righteously in your own cause:–do you hate the man?’

‘No, I don’t hate him.’

‘Do you dislike him?’

‘I can’t say I like him.’

‘Do you love him as yourself?’

‘Oh, come! come! no one does that!’

‘Then no one is to be trusted when he thinks, however firmly, that he is all right, and his neighbour all wrong, in any matter between them.’

‘But I don’t say I am all right, and he is all wrong; there may be something to urge on his side: what I say is, that I am more in the right than he.’

‘This is not fundamentally a question of things: it is a question of condition, of spiritual relation and action, towards your neighbour. If in yourself you were all right towards him, you could do him no wrong. Let it be with the individual dispute as it may, you owe him something that you do not pay him, as certainly as you think he owes you something he will not pay you.’

‘He would take immediate advantage of me if I owned that.’

‘So much the worse for him. Until you are fair to him, it does not matter to you whether he is unfair to you or not.’

‘I beg your pardon–it is just what does matter! I want nothing but my rights. What can matter to me more than my rights?’

'Your duties–your debts. You are all wrong about the thing. It is a very small matter to you whether the man give you your rights or not; it is life or death to you whether or not you give him his. Whether he pay you what you count his debt or no, you will be compelled to pay him all you owe him. If you owe him a pound and he you a million, you must pay him the pound whether he pay you the million or not; there is no business-parallel here. If, owing you love, he gives you hate, you, owing him love, have yet to pay it.

As found in MacDonald’s sermon: “The Last Farthing

1 Like

And it gets more challenging yet; in my opinion the following snippet isn’t just for any casual adult reading. It is a description which, once deeply contemplated by any mind that has even just a passing acquaintence with the hell of loneliness, is recognized as a description of something that makes the dreaded torture of hellfire a mere child’s play - even a banquet feast in comparison. Traditional proponents of hellfire and brimstone have nothing on this; or rather - it is put forward on the strongest possible urgency that hellfire or annihilation either one, is a mercy if it becomes a road away from an eternity with the following fate, though I start the excerpt below well before the ghastly descriptions that Lewis picked up.

(116) The Prison

If the man acknowledge, and would pay if he could but cannot, the universe will be taxed to help him rather than he should continue unable. If the man accepts the will of God, he is the child of the Father, the whole power and wealth of the Father is for him, and the uttermost farthing will easily be paid. If the man denies the debt, or acknowledging does nothing towards paying it, then–at last–the prison! God in the dark can make a man thirst for the light, who never in the light sought but the dark. The cells of the prison may differ in degree of darkness; but they are all alike in this, that not a door opens but to payment. There is no day but the will of God, and he who is of the night cannot be for ever allowed to roam the day; unfelt, unprized, the light must be taken from him, that he may know what the darkness is. When the darkness is perfect, when he is totally without the light he has spent the light in slaying, then will he know darkness.

I think I have seen from afar something of the final prison of all, the innermost cell of the debtor of the universe; I will endeavour to convey what I think it may be.

It is the vast outside; the ghastly dark beyond the gates of the city of which God is the light–where the evil dogs go ranging, silent as the dark, for there is no sound any more than sight. The time of signs is over. Every sense has its signs, and they were all misused: there is no sense, no sign more–nothing now by means of which to believe. The man wakes from the final struggle of death, in absolute loneliness-- such a loneliness as in the most miserable moment of deserted childhood he never knew. Not a hint, not a shadow of anything outside his consciousness reaches him. All is dark, dark and dumb; no motion–not the breath of a wind! never a dream of change! not a scent from far-off field! nothing to suggest being or thing besides the man himself, no sign of God anywhere. God has so far withdrawn from the man, that he is conscious only of that from which he has withdrawn. In the midst of the live world he cared for nothing but himself; now in the dead world he is in God’s prison, his own separated self. He would not believe in God because he never saw God; now he doubts if there be such a thing as the face of a man–doubts if he ever really saw one, ever anything more than dreamed of such a thing:–he never came near enough to human being, to know what human being really was–so may well doubt if human beings ever were, if ever he was one of them.

Next after doubt comes reasoning on the doubt: ‘The only one must be God! I know no one but myself: I must myself be God–none else!’ Poor helpless dumb devil!–his own glorious lord god! Yea, he will imagine himself that same resistless force which, without his will, without his knowledge, is the law by which the sun burns, and the stars keep their courses, the strength that drives all the engines of the world. His fancy will give birth to a thousand fancies, which will run riot like the mice in a house but just deserted: he will call it creation, and his. Having no reality to set them beside, nothing to correct them by; the measured order, harmonious relations, and sweet graces of God’s world nowhere for him; what he thinks, will be, for lack of what God thinks, the man’s realities: what others can he have! Soon, misery will beget on imagination a thousand shapes of woe, which he will not be able to rule, direct, or even distinguish from real presences–a whole world of miserable contradictions and cold-fever-dreams.

But no liveliest human imagination could supply adequate representation of what it would be to be left without a shadow of the presence of God. If God gave it, man could not understand it: he knows neither God nor himself in the way of the understanding. For not he who cares least about God was in this world ever left as God could leave him. I doubt if any man could continue following his wickedness from whom God had withdrawn.

The most frightful idea of what could, to his own consciousness, befall a man, is that he should have to lead an existence with which God had nothing to do. The thing could not be; for being that is caused, the causation ceasing, must of necessity cease. It is always in, and never out of God, that we can live and do.

And I think to just ‘rip off the bandage’ in one swoop, I’ll post the next too, to pass beyond as quickly as possible.

(117) Not Good to Be Alone

But I suppose the man so left that he seems to himself utterly alone, yet, alas! with himself–smallest interchange of thought, feeblest contact of existence, dullest reflection from other being, impossible: in such evil case I believe the man would be glad to come in contact with the worst-loathed insect: it would be a shape of life, something beyond and besides his own huge, void, formless being! I imagine some such feeling in the prayer of the devils for leave to go into the swine. His worst enemy, could he but be aware of him, he would be ready to worship. For the misery would be not merely the absence of all being other than his own self, but the fearful, endless, unavoidable presence of that self. Without the correction, the reflection, the support of other presences, being is not merely unsafe, it is a horror–for anyone but God, who is his own being. For him whose idea is God’s, and the image of God, his own being is far too fragmentary and imperfect to be anything like good company. It is the lovely creatures God has made all around us, in them giving us himself, that, until we know him, save us from the frenzy of aloneness–for that aloneness is Self, Self, Self.

As found in MacDonald’s sermon: “The Last Farthing

Thanks for these, Mervin.
Musing, I find this improves the mistake that I can fall into…that holiness is unhealthy. We say no one can live up to the standard; so we shouldn’t try; so Christ saves us from God’s wrath. We can unintentionally give the implication that it’s unhealthy to love righteousness, and that God is unlike Christ.
However, rather than fear of God, perhaps we can love God as Christ did, and looking to be more like Him. It’s a joy to grow, not something to be feared. And God corrects us as a loving parent, not as a tyrant who can not stand to see the tiniest mistake.
Thanks

3 Likes

(118) Be Ye Perfect

Whoever will live must cease to be a slave and become a child of God. There is no half-way house of rest, where ungodliness may be dallied with, nor prove quite fatal. Be they few or many cast into such prison as I have endeavoured to imagine, there can be no deliverance for human soul, whether in that prison or out of it, but in paying the last farthing, in becoming lowly, penitent, self-refusing–so receiving the sonship, and learning to cry, Father !

As found in MacDonald’s sermon: “The Last Farthing

2 Likes

(119) The Heart

As no scripture is of private interpretation, so is there no feeling in human heart which exists in that heart alone, which is not, in some form or degree, in every heart; and thence I conclude that many must have groaned like myself under the supposed authority of this doctrine. The refusal to look up to God as our Father is the one central wrong in the whole human affair; the inability, the one central misery: whatever serves to clear any difficulty from the way of the recognition of the Father, will more or less undermine every difficulty in life.

‘Is God then not my Father,’ cries the heart of the child, ‘that I need to be adopted by him? Adoption! that can never satisfy me. Who is my father? Am I not his to begin with? Is God not my very own Father? Is he my Father only in a sort or fashion–by a legal contrivance? Truly, much love may lie in adoption, but if I accept it from any one, I allow myself the child of another! The adoption of God would indeed be a blessed thing if another than he had given me being! but if he gave me being, then it means no reception, but a repudiation.–“O Father, am I not your child?”’

‘No; but he will adopt you. He will not acknowledge you his child, but he will call you his child, and be a father to you.’

‘Alas!’ cries the child, 'if he be not my father, he cannot become my father. A father is a father from the beginning. A primary relation cannot be superinduced. The consequence might be small where earthly fatherhood was concerned, but the very origin of my being–alas, if he be only a maker and not a father! Then am I only a machine, and not a child–not a man! It is false to say I was created in his image!

‘It avails nothing to answer that we lost our birthright by the fall. I do not care to argue that I did not fall when Adam fell; for I have fallen many a time, and there is a shadow on my soul which I or another may call a curse; I cannot get rid of a something that always intrudes between my heart and the blue of every sky. But it avails nothing, either for my heart or their argument, to say I have fallen and been cast out: can any repudiation, even that of God, undo the facts of an existent origin? Nor is it merely that he made me: by whose power do I go on living? When he cast me out, as you say, did I then begin to draw my being from myself–or from the devil? In whom do I live and move and have my being? It cannot be that I am not the creature of God.’

‘But creation is not fatherhood.’

'Creation in the image of God, is. And if I am not in the image of God, how can the word of God be of any meaning to me? “He called them gods to whom the word of God came,” says the Master himself. To be fit to receive his word implies being of his kind.

The above begins a series (119-126) from the sermon “Abba, Father

And I included considerably more in the above bit than Lewis did (and the next one follows this text directly). All I will add here though is that it is a relief to me to hear MacDonald’s take on the “no scripture is a matter of private interpretation”, since I have thought this verse might be seized on in unwarranted fashion by those who wish to claim they merely “read the Bible as it is” and want us all to pretend that their view on it, then, was the end of the matter. And while I may not yet fully understand MacDonald’s exposition of it, I think I see enough to begin to have better understanding of it.

2 Likes

I think I understand what you mean even though the scriptures are a foreign land to me. Culturally, for those it sustains, part of what they offer is societal glue. Can’t get on the same page without making some effort. But in another way everyone is limited to the sense they can make of a text, any text. It is hard to imagine a time when books were rare and someone who could read them perhaps more so. If the only way you could access scripture was to have it read to you I imagine sense making would become a communal event.

2 Likes

3 posts were split to a new topic: Abrahamic religion commonalities

What does MacDonald’s think of this

The grace of God in Christ abounded to many more. Similarly, 1Cor. 15:21-22: NKJV: For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Feel free to read any of his sermons or books for yourself and you’ll probably get a fairly good feel for how he thinks!

2 Likes

(120) Precious Blame

No matter how his image may have been defaced in me: the thing defaced is his image, remains his defaced image–an image yet that can hear his word. What makes me evil and miserable is, that the thing spoiled in me is the image of the Perfect. Nothing can be evil but in virtue of a good hypostasis. No, no! nothing can make it that I am not the child of God. If one say, “Look at the animals: God made them: you do not call them the children of God!” I answer: “But I am to blame; they are not to blame! I cling fast to my blame: it is the seal of my childhood.” I have nothing to argue from in the animals, for I do not understand them. Two things only I am sure of: that God is to them “a faithful creator;” and that the sooner I put in force my claim to be a child of God, the better for them; for they too are fallen, though without blame.’

As found from MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “Abba, Father

2 Likes

You wrote: I’m glad if you’re finding something of value in MacDonald

I’ll respond. I wonder what all MacDonald went through as he was alive and he shared his writing; how did other churches behave towards him; and what mistakes did MacDonald make as he shared?

I’m glad if you’re finding something of value in MacDonald, Riversea. Because that’s what (who) this thread is mainly focusing on - which is why I’m not letting long posts stand here that are about your papers instead. There may be significant overlap, to be sure; but this thread remains with that focus nonetheless, and not as a venue for your papers and reactions (even to MacDonald).

1 Like

You wrote: I think the best way to engage here is to put out a short singular idea (or better yet - ask a real question),

I’ll respond: Ok, I’ll try your advice. What are some questions that MacDonald struggled with and wished to rewrite after learning more about them?

I think you’ll find people engage with your ideas more if you share shorter bits that can more easily be responded to. Large or repeated posts tend to get ignored more - unless you really manage to grab someone’s interest to make them want to spend a lot of time. But short of that, I think the best way to engage here is to put out a short singular idea (or better yet - ask a real question), and then just see what interest or response that might generate. Sometimes it doesn’t attract any, and we move on, and investigate something else.

1 Like

(121) The Same

However bad I may be, I am the child of God, and therein lies my blame. Ah, I would not lose my blame! in my blame lies my hope.

As found from MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “Abba, Father

1 Like

I’ve always though my ability to locate my blame is the greatest strength I bring to relationships. Some discernment about what we choose to share about the blame we recognize is also helpful. Of course even a willingness to look is helpful and anyone incapable of making the effort at all is probably better off living as a hermit.

2 Likes

And some of us consider ourselves gifted in helping others to see how they are to blame! :grinning:

I’m still looking for where that’s listed among the gifts and fruits of the spirit. I’m sure it must be in there somewhere.

3 Likes

Guilty! It has taken a lifetime to recognize that doing differently than I would is not a character flaw … at least hypothetically. In the next lifetime I’ll seek not to dig myself into so many holes by casting blame which can only be undone by locating my own.

2 Likes

(122) Man Glorified

Everything must at length be subject to man, as it was to The Man. When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world; he may walk on the sea like his Lord; the deadliest thing will not he able to hurt him…

As found from MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “Abba, Father

1 Like

Wow, that’s just not what I expected! Maybe you can clarify–usually MacDonald is very humble, and in fact thought that all good things wind up in heaven, including animals :slight_smile: Thanks for the thoughts

1 Like