Must not the glory of existence be endlessly redoubled in the infinite love of the creature–for all love is infinite–to the infinite God, the great one life, than whom is no other–only shadows, lovely shadows of him!
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Life ”. (Emphasis added.)
Lewis must really have been desperately shortening his own book, because here all he gave us of MacDonald’s thought was the bolded sentence fragment! [Or to be more charitable to Lewis … I guess he found that phrase - that depiction of God so profound, that it was worthy of an entry all of its own.]
My impression (from my tiny sample size of his thinking) is that Pullman would oppose this characterization of God as delighting in all the dim shadows of Himself. If God is truly relational then he would desire Others, not merely ‘others’ and he would have no desire that they should respond like puppets or out of fear of his reprisal. He isn’t all of life but rather the ground of all life, all of which he nurtures along though never in any forced way. He is the only thing constant for life, its north star showing the way but delighting as we rise to each new challenge on our own power.
Through the process of listening to Mike’s link I’ve run across other interesting criticisms of Lewis, not all of them without merit or concern, though - finding myself much more a critic of this age’s cancel culture propensity than I am a dismisser of all the grubby humans they wish to dismiss; I remain a staunch fan of Lewis - in full knowledge that I never did fully agree with him on absolutely everything anyway.
But one criticism that particularly intrigues me as probably having merit (and all the more so today) is that these Christian authors with all their energy poured into other make-believe worlds are by implication finding this world deficient and drawing us toward the unbiblical rejection of this creation in favor of … X. Even if ‘X’ is the traditional Christian after-life, some Christian authors have found this problematic, and I think for very good reasons. And I bet if Lewis were here to respond to this, and even more interestingly yet MacDonald, I’m thinking they might set the record straight on a few things in these regards. For one thing, I don’t find MacDonald to be one who “sets this world aside” as something to be despised for the sake of escape to another. I could be wrong about this - and maybe I just need to be reminded of some things MacDonald has indeed written. I know it’s pretty common to see this life as “merely a shadow” of the next - and I think that theme is prominent. But I still don’t equate this with an outright dismissal of this life so much as an intended encouragement for the many for whom this life has held out so little promise. I welcome thoughts, recollections, and pushback on all this as always.
Naturally the first emotion of man towards the being he calls God, but of whom he knows so little, is fear.
Where it is possible that fear should exist, it is well it should exist, cause continual uneasiness, and be cast out by nothing less than love. In him who does not know God, and must be anything but satisfied with himself, fear towards God is as reasonable as it is natural, and serves powerfully towards the development of his true humanity. Neither the savage, nor the self-sufficient sage, is rightly human. It matters nothing whether we regard the one or the other as degenerate or as undeveloped–neither I say is human; the humanity is there, but has to be born in each, and for this birth everything natural must do its part; fear is natural, and has a part to perform nothing but itself could perform in the birth of the true humanity. Until love, which is the truth towards God, is able to cast out fear, it is well that fear should hold; it is a bond, however poor, between that which is and that which creates–a bond that must be broken, but a bond that can be broken only by the tightening of an infinitely closer bond. Verily, God must be terrible to those that are far from him; for they fear he will do, yea, he is doing with them what they do not, cannot desire, and can ill endure.
As found in the unspoken sermon “Fear of God”. (From which will be drawn 142-147.)
Oh, great observation. I agree–I don’t think that he was this sort–I remember one remark he made about listening to a little girl singing joyfully as she played, and he remarked that that was the kind of person God expected and hoped all people would be like–that truly enjoying themselves was the way He made us.
Thanks.
PS If he gets a chance, I’d like to hear what @Daniel_Fisher would think of C S Lewis’ thoughts on Shadowlands. One sees quotes from “Last Battle” from Lewis and “The Golden Key” (a beautiful fairy tale by Macdonald) about this theme.
Thanks.
In Lewis’ quote, about divine hedonism, it’s an interesting meditation. There is joy both now and later–possibly because each exists. One gives measure, and meaning, to the other.
If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased . (26)
This is one of several things I remember Lewis addressing convincingly in Mere Christianity. I don’t recall the exact words, but it was something about how those who are heavenly minded are capable of affecting remarkable good in this world. Still there is the problem of when the kingdom of heaven conflicts with kingdoms of this world.
That’s an interesting question. I suppose if the ANE conceptions of gods is that if you need to keep them appeased with sacrifices so that you can win your wars, have successful harvests, etc. then fear would seem the most natural default posture toward any such being. So your question makes me wonder, is the whole concept of a comforting God somewhat unique to the Judeo Christian tradition? It’s hard to imagine anyone back then seeing any of their gods in that kind of role; and indeed the Christian God wasn’t often referred to in comforting ways back then apart from maybe a few of the psalms or a couple other scattered mentions among the prophets. Mostly one just feared God - and that remains a prominent theme today even among many Christians despite all the new covenant language of love, comfort, and casting out of fear.
R.C. Sproul, who I am assuming you know, had one verse if he could have just one, which I also love as it shows just how unique God revealed religion is, and it has been this way all along, Genesis 15:17.
A smoking firepot and a flaming torch passing between animal pieces?! An intriguing mental picture to be sure, but not something I’d have thought would particularly distinguish the God of Abraham from other run-of-the-mill ANE gods. Or in any rate, certainly not as fascinating to me as what Christ goes on to show us of God.
Separation wouldn’t seem to be any great deal at first glance to a nonbeliever, but to somebody who considers themselves already “in the fold”, the fear of being cast out would be very real. So yeah - I can see that, if that’s where you were going. Not that any healthy family would want their kids so destabilized as to always be wondering whether or not they could still be in the family tomorrow, pending today’s behavior. But you could fear what papa or mamma might see fit to do in order to keep you acceptable and welcome inside the family - which might involve discipline and training that isn’t pleasant at the time. The latter model is what looks like the superior loving family to me.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the passage. My covenant theology is rusty, and my biblical theology weak, so I would have a hard time explaining at length how the imagery of the passage is God taking the maledictory oath upon himself. As the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, it may be worth looking at the verse a little closer to see how remarkable it would have been for the suzerain to act this way in an ANE culture.
While they are such as they are, there is much in him that cannot but affright them; they ought, they do well to fear him. It is, while they remain what they are, the only true relation between them. To remove that fear from their hearts, save by letting them know his love with its purifying fire, a love which for ages, it may be, they cannot know, would be to give them up utterly to the power of evil. Persuade men that fear is a vile thing, that it is an insult to God, that he will none of it–while yet they are in love with their own will, and slaves to every movement of passionate impulse, and what will the consequence be? That they will insult God as a discarded idol, a superstition, a falsehood, as a thing under whose evil influence they have too long groaned, a thing to be cast out and spit upon. After that how much will they learn of him?
