Yeah - the end of Romans 7 is what I had in mind. And with you, I’m glad for Paul’s conclusion on that, and of course Romans 8 as well, though tempered with other biblical passages so that one is restrained from just writing off all flesh as nothing but evil.
1 Like
No kidding!
That’s a very good nut-shell assessment that explains why I find so many of MacDonald’s quotes so hard to swallow.
That’s fair! Glad to hear we are tacking in the same direction
1 Like
Only a self may do any casting out unless the master who prefers to delegate chooses to abandon his commitment to free will and give that self the boot himself.
While it is good to remember who we serve it is unseemly to be eager to quit the role we’ve been assigned. The master doesn’t desire a servant that is forever throwing his hands off the steering wheel and declaring it is the master’s privilege to steer. Of course it is but it is our duty to do that which we have been entrusted to do using what seem to us to be such insufficient gifts. But if that is true the solution is to become better, to rise to the challenge we are given and keep our hand on that wheel. The trick is to become a skillful servant without coming to think that is all that is required to take over the deep understanding of what we should steer toward.
2 Likes
And just to be clear - in the snippet above attributed to me … that goes several layers deeper. It is MacDonald, narrating what he says (or thinks he should say) when addressing his ‘self’.
What is strange to me is … who does he think is doing the talking there? Self cannot exorcise self - and nor should it try (to my way of thinking). Denying the self is one thing. Disowning or trying to divorce self, entirely another. So … yeah … until I read more from that sermon, I’m still holding this at arm’s length for examination. Total submission to Christ - of course. Christians will at least pay lip service to that ultimate goal even while we realize how much work is needed on us to realize such an ideal. But I think I’ve read enough MacDonald to know that he values what he will refer to as the true (truest) self that is in submission to Christ, and willingly, joyfully so. So far from being dissolved, it is the very unique and precious self finally, fully realized. I credit MacDonald with those thoughts too as I’m pretty sure I’ve quoted him saying some things pretty much just like that.
2 Likes
Awkward quoting someone else’s quote for that reason though I doubt anyone suspected the words had issued from you. 
But I agree it is surely not meant by him to imply that he intends to cease taking his own counsel. I figured he was redoubling his resolve to keep the sacred central in his intentions. I think he doesn’t want to see his regard for the sacred as just one more druther alongside others, it isn’t merely a source of personal comfort and meaning.
1 Like
It possible MacDonald wasn’t always clear on the distinction in his own mind, but clear it is at times, probably often, but I can’t say.
I found this passage while searching for a connection between MacDonald and Buddhism. I think it’s interesting and highlights the difference:
Lindsay’s Voyage to Arcturus on the other hand, has a more ambiguous ending. In Lilith , death is something wonderful that all things need to accept before they can live, but in Arcturus, death proves the fallacy of the thing, not that death itself is false, but that death here is used to signify the acknowledgement of a falsehood, a philosophy of the world shown as the nothing it was all along. I would argue that behind the obvious gnosticism in Arcturus, can be seen a buddhist understanding of the world. Not only that the world is mere projection, but that to be alive, the self itself must die. In Lilith , the person accepts death, but the person remains, while in Arcturus, the person remains because he himself is no more. This is the difference.
(160) My Yoke is Easy
The will of the Father is the yoke he would have us take, and bear also with him. It is of this yoke that he says, It is easy , of this burden, It is light . He is not saying, ‘The yoke I lay upon you is easy, the burden light;’ what he says is, ‘The yoke I carry is easy, the burden on my shoulders is light.’ With the garden of Gethsemane before him, with the hour and the power of darkness waiting for him, he declares his yoke easy, his burden light.
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Self-Denial ”.
1 Like
(161) We Must Be Jealous
We must be jealous for God against ourselves, and look well to the cunning and deceitful Self–ever cunning and deceitful until it is informed of God–until it is thoroughly and utterly denied, and God is to it also All-in-all–till we have left it quite empty of our will and our regard, and God has come into it, and made it–not indeed an adytum , but a pylon for himself. Until then, its very denials, its very turnings from things dear to it for the sake of Christ, will tend to foster its self-regard, and generate in it a yet deeper self- worship.
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Self-Denial ”.
Adytum: The innermost sanctuary of an ancient Greek temple.
1 Like
Thanks for these, Mervin.
I have found myself struggling with Macdonald–maybe because we all tend to struggle when it comes to the nitty gritty of theodicy (as I understand it, finding an explanation for the problem of evil). In other books, he seems to emphasize God’s willingness to come to our level, as in Jesus.
Some of this passage reminds me of one in “The Fisherman’s Lady,” when Graham asks his pupil, Malcolm, if he’s not afraid to go on the stormy seas to fish. “Afraid!” he said. "I would not have my Lord say to me, “O you of little faith!”
“But,” said Graham, “What if he would mean to drown you?”
“If He were to drown me, and not mean it, then I would be afraid,” replied Malcolm (or something like that).(this is my recollection of the passage)
The implication seems to be that God uses all things for the betterment of his children. Yet, I hesitate to follow Macdonald that far. Rape, the unjust death of children and the innocent–these seem evil to me–or at least, something I would strongly try to avoid.
The theodicy in traditional circles seems to be that all death and evil comes from one man’s sin (which many think is a misinterpretation by the early church fathers, like Augustine, through the Latin version of Romans, at least in part) It is a bit, I think, like an abused child who blames themselves, to better feel control of what has happened. At least, it does call this suffering undesirable, though.
On the other hand, Macdonald does have a point–if we learn to take the hard with the good, we do become more mature; and God can turn all things to good.
Here’s another place I struggle. Enns made a podcast that the covering up of his mouth was mainly more of a protest–that Job did not find it a fulfilling answer, and that perhaps the end of Job was added on.
Enns compared God’s rebuke to Job like that of a parent who told his erring son, “do you know how I met your mom?” when his son was really wondering why he was being punished, when having done nothing wrong.
I understand that the sum is more that its parts, at least in our relationship to it; however, I am wondering if MacDonald did not know of this take. In the Euthyphro dilemma, the question is whether might makes right. In general, I think that Jesus’ compassion shows that it doesn’t–other than upholding what is right
Episode 133: Pete Enns - The Book of Job - The Bible For Normal People
Thanks. It’s a hard one. There are lessons from both sides, for sure.
1 Like
That was all an interesting take on Job there - thanks, Randy! And while I’ve long respected how Job is a complicated book - with no end of disagreement among commentators, I still had no idea about some of the complications that Enns mentioned! - particularly about the possible mash-up of speeches and who gave them in chapters 26, 27, 28. I’ve often referred to some of Job 28 as some of my favorite (science teacher) verses in the Bible, so the possibility that it may still have been Job’s friends talking there rather than Job himself is a rather sobering thought all on its own. But such a concern betrays a shallow use of the Bible in any case that isn’t worthy of the wrestling seen in much of its material, much less Job. What Enns says about it being a critique of the transactional nature of God really rings true.
Another book I’m reading right now is contrasting the inferior (pre-Christ view) of God as transactional (contractual) with the revealed-in-Christ view of our relationship with God as being covenantal instead. Christ’s revelation is to take precedence for Christians, and yet we still maintain our love affair with the old contractual system.
2 Likes
That sounds pretty interesting. I’m probably more familiar with family and acquaintance who are in the contractual mode. Some seem to feel quite entitled to what they feel has been promised. I suspect the covenant perspective is less prone to legalism?
1 Like
Absolutely. I was hospitalized for six days starting with an ambulance ride in the wee hours of Easter Sunday morning because of an SBO (small bowel obstruction, a way more common affliction than I had a clue), presumably due to adhesions resulting from my nephrectomy.
For those who know my affinity for relating factual accounts of God’s loving interventions in my life and others’ (most reading this ; - ), this won’t be a total surprise. From a PM:
That would be good, good for them and good for me (good for me in having more loving and joyful siblings in the age to come).
1 Like
Hope you have recovered well. That is a miserable experience. I had a friend recently who had a similar problem, and it turned out he had a congenital bowel malrotation with a midgut volvulus.(Lay terms, his guts were made backward, and some of them twisted like a balloon toy). Anyway, not a fun time.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t volunteer for it, given the opportunity. 
And I guess there is a 20% recurrence rate.
1 Like
(162) Facing Both Ways
Is there not many a Christian who, having begun to deny himself, yet spends much strength in the vain and evil endeavour to accommodate matters between Christ and the dear Self–seeking to save that which so he must certainly lose–in how different a way from that in which the Master would have him lose it! It is one thing to have the loved self devoured of hell in hate and horror and disappointment; another to yield it to conscious possession by the living God himself, who will raise it then first and only to its true individuality, freedom, and life. With its cause within it, then, indeed, it shall be saved!–how then should it but live!
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Self-Denial ”.
2 Likes
(163) The Careless Soul
The careless soul receives the Father’s gifts as if it were a way things had of dropping into his hand. He thus grants himself a slave, dependent on chance and his own blundering endeavour–yet is he ever complaining, as if some one were accountable for the checks which meet him at every turn. For the good that comes to him, he gives no thanks–who is there to thank? at the disappointments that befall him he grumbles–there must be some one to blame!
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Self-Denial ”.
2 Likes
I’ve admired many of MacDonald’s sentiments but I can’t or at least won’t follow him here.
The last two quotes reinforce my impression that there is too much self denial in Christianity, as if the only thing that mattered was a state of affairs which obtains only after your life is over. I feel that is wrong in my bones. Life flows and no part of it is disposable, most certainly not that part which is most tangible. I would never trade what is present for what is hypothetical. It isn’t in my nature and I’m most grateful for that nature. This isn’t a simple preference for hedonism. There is much else besides that in the option of choosing embodied experience over abstract hypothetical contingencies.
1 Like