MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
1135

(215) Mean Theologies (I included all the text following directly from the last thought all the way to the end of this sermon.)

He cannot repudiate the essential and keep the resultant. Men cannot, or will not, or dare not see that nothing but his being our father gives him any right over us–that nothing but that could give him a perfect right. They regard the father of their spirits as their governor! They yield the idea of the Ancient of Days, ‘the glad creator,’ and put in its stead a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for righteousness, but for his rights; not for the eternal purities, but the goody proprieties. The prophets of such a God take all the glow, all the hope, all the colour, all the worth, out of life on earth, and offer you instead what they call eternal bliss–a pale, tearless hell. Of all things, turn from a mean, poverty stricken faith. But, if you are straitened in your own mammon-worshipping soul, how shall you believe in a God any greater than can stand up in that prison-chamber?

I desire to wake no dispute, will myself dispute with no man, but for the sake of those whom certain believers trouble, I have spoken my mind. I love the one God seen in the face of Jesus Christ. From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s portrait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing. Not such a God is he concerning whom was the message John heard from Jesus, that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Justice”

2 Likes
1136

Thanks. This is the passage that reminds me of the dialogue between Piper and Keller about both Lewis and Macdonald…where Piper gave up reading Macdonald. I realize there is much more to Edwards than “Sinners,” and we all struggle with God’s justice and mercy. Keller was typically compassionate, while struggling through some of Lewis’ view on inerrancy and authority.

Thanks.

1 Like
1137

I have also been reading “The Boyhood of Ranald Bannerman,” by Macdonald, with my wife and kids for the second time around. I love a passage where Ranald’s father, a kindly preacher, takes him to visit an elderly, simple Christian man who is dying. He wants Ranald to learn from him about God, as he has spent so much more of his life putting Him first.

In another, my kids were struck with the heartfelt contrition and apology the father helps Ranald make to a cranky old lady who Ranald had played a mean prank on.

The father identified with Ranald, which helped him see the error of his ways and want to change

It also helped him finally accept forgiveness.

2 Likes
1138

Merv, @Randy,
Thanks for putting up with my groaning over this sermon. These last few sections help pull his thoughts together, so I at least understand him better.
Dear Edwards. What little of his I have read, I actually identified with. “Religious Affections” is actually lovely.
Randy, I’ll try to get to the video today.

2 Likes
1139

(216) On Believing Ill of God

Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another calls it light, while it looks to thee dark. Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it. But, of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing as interpreted must be right because God does it, is of the devil. Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness. Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as his what thou canst see only as darkness. It is impossible thou art seeing a true, a real thing–seeing it as it is, I mean–if it looks to thee darkness. But let thy words be few, lest thou say with thy tongue what thou wilt afterward repent with thy heart.

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

2 Likes
1140

I should probably read something of Edwards so that I could perhaps also gain a better impression of him than simply from his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (and that as seen through MacDonald’s eyes no less!)

I just finished reading another chapter in Ezekiel this morning - one of many chapters in which God is breathing threats and wrath against an idolatrous people (and all their false prophets) - and God even goes on to “comfort” Ezekiel with the thoughts of how much this people deserves all the evil about to be brought on them.

Passages such as that are far from isolated among the prophets, and Christendom as represented by people like Edwards could surely be forgiven for thinking they are solidly within biblical traditions to dwell as they seem to on such wrath. But I also agree that the library of scriptures shows us a long tradition of “texts in travail” with themselves - a bible ‘arguing with itself’ as I’ve heard it said. And somebody like MacDonald pretty much fells entire swaths of all those traditional stances with the power of one name - the annointed One by whom and through whom all things are made new. At least to hear MacDonald tell it (in my view) - all that travail (between wrath and law / love and grace) is now over and has been definitvely answered; not by one annihilating the other, but rather by subsuming it. Though there are many in the church yet today for whom that struggle is still unresolved.

And I recently (through the just concluded sermon in fact) - could see how MacDonald too gives us sermons “in travail with themselves”, and acknowledging the ongoing status of his own evolving struggle. Because I’m pretty sure I’ve read MacDonald exhorting himself and his readers that God has called us to be ‘Children’ (heirs), not ‘slaves’ - and that a slave in the household has not yet taken hold of the true status that has been offered them, even though it is better that they should at least be a slave of Christ than slave to anything or anyone else. But slavery is cast as a lesser thing, and definitely not God’s ideal (as anyone reading the epistle to the Galatians would be made aware in no uncertain terms.)

So imagine my surprise when after reading this just-concluded sermon “Justice”, I found in it this line from MacDonald:

I dare not say with Paul that I am the slave of Christ; but my highest aspiration and desire is to be the slave of Christ.

While I have often imagined, perhaps something of a higher sainthood for the author than he claims for himself, this is also a reminder that among all the dizzying heights of righteousness his pen can describe, he nonetheless did not picture himself as occupying those heights himself, but more just struggling along in the foothills with all the rest of us. Nor - despite the heated indignation he finally let show through here towards depictions of God such as he saw in Edwards’ work - does MacDonald spend much ink putting others down in this regard. So it appears to me that his frank and emotionally animated candor here is more an exception than a rule for him, and he is usually eager to be charitable towards all others who have received what they have from various traditions; and more stands with and among them than attempts to Lord it over them by virtue of pointing out deficiencies in their knowledge. At least that’s me being charitable with MacDonald here - a charity I should then follow him (and you all) in extending to others as well.

1 Like
1141

Continuing the discussion from MacDonald (selections from Lewis):

Rabbit Trails:

Religious Affections provides a view of a very different side of Edwards. In no way is it divorced from the theology that informs SiHoAG, but one sees the warmth of his love for and deep delight in his Savior. Much like one sees in Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions. Puritans and their theological grandchildren are treated as one-dimensional caricatures without reference to their culture, time, intellectual and theological heritage, etc. Just as the Radical Reformers are.

If you find MacDonald’s (1824 - 1905) formal, archaic language challenging, Edwards’ (1703 - 1758) will be even more so. Gerald MacDermott wrote a modernized version of it called Seeing God : Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment (2000) that is very readable – a good intro to the ideas and structure, if one wants some help with the original.

Edwards’ unyielding adherence to orthodox doctrine lead to his dismissal from his church. His later life was spent as a missionary to Native Americans and died by participating in an early medical study of smallpox inoculations.

How interesting you should bring this up. I’ve been reading City on a Hill : A History of American Exceptionalism by Abram C. Van Engen on the recommendation of a historian friend. It’s been a frustratingly excellent book. In one section the author discusses the effect that the use of two different Bible translations/editions had on the theology:

Beginning in 1611, two English translations of scripture vied for authority: the King James Version, authorized by King James I (1603–1625), and the Geneva, produced by Calvinist scholars in Switzerland fifty years earlier. Before the KJV appeared, the Geneva was the most widely read Bible in English, running through 140 editions between 1560 and 1644. It had emerged from a context of persecution and exile.
…
The Geneva divided chapters into verses for the first time in English, and it annotated those verses with moral explanations and theological glosses—an immense Calvinist commentary of over three hundred thousand words crowding every single page. In addition, the Geneva Bible cross-referenced passages, so that someone reading Romans 13:9 (“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”) would also be directed to Leviticus 19:11, Matthew 21:39, Mark 12:31, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8. In other words, the Geneva Bible conceived of scripture as a vast system of unified meaning, a web of scriptural passages interlinking, paralleling, and supporting one another.

In Baptist churches, I’ve been used to the idea of the Bible being a unified collection of texts that are used to interpret each other. In our new church, people I know see it as much more interconnected, a single, unified whole, just as described above in the description of the Geneva Bible. There is a history of this view, so it seems.

I would say I’m one of them. I don’t see easy answers to questions about scripture, doctrine and faith in the modern/postmodern world. Working with texts that tell us something so important but from a thought and information world so entirely different from our own forces us to either deny one thing or the other, or struggle. I think the struggle is worth it. But I won’t deny it’s there.

3 Likes
1142

(217) Condemnation

… no man is condemned for anything he has done; he is condemned for continuing to do wrong. He is condemned for not coming out of the darkness, for not coming to the light, …

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

1 Like
1143

I daresay, though, that you are willing to recognize the primacy of Love over wrath? Not that wrath is nonexistent or of no account; only that it is properly understood as being subservient to the purposes of love. “God is Love”, after all. There is no equivalent claim that “God is Wrath.” Love and wrath are not symmetrical equals like some sort of “yin and yang” thing. That’s all I was really speaking of when I said that current readers of scripture ought to be able to recognize this. [And as I recall, there was an entire thread or part of a thread somewhere that we devoted to this particular tension.]

Of course there are still other things that remain unresolved or in great tension for probably all of us.

1 Like
1144

that’s an interesting quote–failure to repent–the way one’s compass goes.

1145

And hi @Kendel , this reminds me of a good diagram I found that describes LOVE as being God’s essence which gets expressed (experienced by us) in various ways which we may call "attributes.

god is love
god is love2048×1152 194 KB

2 Likes
1146

That’s very interesting. Thank you. I will think it over.

1147

(218) Excuses

We dare not say that this or that man would not have come to the light had he seen it; we do not know that he will not come to the light the moment he does see it. God gives every man time. There is a light that lightens sage and savage, but the glory of God in the face of Jesus may not have shined on this sage or that savage. The condemnation is of those who, having seen Jesus, refuse to come to him, or pretend to come to him but do not the things he says. They have all sorts of excuses at hand; but as soon as a man begins to make excuse, the time has come when he might be doing that from which he excuses himself. How many are there not who, believing there is something somewhere with the claim of light upon them, go on and on to get more out of the darkness! This consciousness, all neglected by them, gives broad ground for the expostulation of the Lord–‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!’

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

1 Like
1148

In this last of the excerpts from this sermon, we see MacDonald’s take on “the unforgiveable sin” - which, after his treatment has perfect and obvious clarity in stark contrast with the dark obfuscations of those who treat the scriptural testimonies as codes to be solved, and who agonize over what ‘secret’ and specific sin was ‘set apart’ by the Lord as being uniquely and devastatingly unforgiveable. Read on, and let the following light of Christ chase all such darkness away!

(219) Impossibilities

How many are there not who, believing there is something somewhere with the claim of light upon them, go on and on to get more out of the darkness! This consciousness, all neglected by them, gives broad ground for the expostulation of the Lord–‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!’

‘All manner of sin and blasphemy,’ the Lord said, ‘shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the spirit shall not be forgiven.’ God speaks, as it were, in this manner: ‘I forgive you everything. Not a word more shall be said about your sins–only come out of them; come out of the darkness of your exile; come into the light of your home, of your birthright, and do evil no more. Lie no more; cheat no more; oppress no more; slander no more; envy no more; be neither greedy nor vain; love your neighbour as I love you; be my good child; trust in your father. I am light; come to me, and you shall see things as I see them, and hate the evil thing. I will make you love the thing which now you call good and love not. I forgive all the past.’

‘I thank thee, Lord, for forgiving me, but I prefer staying in the darkness: forgive me that too.’

'No; that cannot be. The one thing that cannot be forgiven is the sin of choosing to be evil, of refusing deliverance. It is impossible to forgive that sin. It would be to take part in it.

From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Light”

3 Likes
1149

I am way behind on this thread and the things I really have treasured here. How have I missed this post for 3 weeks and not noticed.
MacDonald at his best here, I think.
This is particularly encouraging in light og a very disturbing conversation I had earlier today. Thanks, Merv.
If you have time and interest in continuing this thread, I am always glad to read it.

2 Likes
1150

I’m glad you found encouragement in the prior one, Kendel - It spoke to me powerfully as well. And I in turn get encouragement from your words. The next installment is a more scathing (than I’ve yet heard) take on those recently healed ones who, despite Jesus’ instructions, went on to spread word about what he’d done. I’ve normally seen their disobedience treated with kid gloves by most of us.
Not so, MacDonald! Read on…

(220) Disobedience

Let us next look at the account of the healing of the two blind men, given in the ninth chapter of Matthew’s gospel. In both the versions the same phrases are used in translation of the word in question, as in the story of the leper in Mark’s gospel–‘straitly,’ ‘strictly,’ ‘sternly charged them.’ I read the passage thus: ‘And Jesus was displeased’–or, perhaps, ‘much displeased’–‘with them, saying, See that no man know it.’

‘But they went forth, and spread abroad his fame in all that land.’ Surely here we have light on the cause of Jesus’ displeasure with the blind men! it was the same with them as with the leper: they showed themselves bent on their own way, and did not care for his. Doubtless they were, in part, all of them moved by the desire to spread abroad his fame; that may even have seemed to them the best acknowledgment they could render their deliverer. They never suspected that a great man might desire to avoid fame, laying no value upon it, knowing it for a foolish thing. They did not understand that a man desirous of helping his fellows might yet avoid a crowd as obstructive to his object. ‘What is a prophet without honour?’ such virtually ask, nor understand the answer, ‘A man the more likely to prove a prophet.’ These men would repay their healer with trumpeting, not obedience. By them he should have his right–but as they not he judged fit! In his modesty he objected, but they would take care he should not go without his reward! Through them he should reap the praises of men! ‘Not tell!’ they exclaim. ‘Indeed, we will tell!’ They were too grateful not to rumour him, not grateful enough to obey him.

We cannot surely be amazed at their self-sufficiency. How many are there not who seem capable of anything for the sake of the church or Christianity, except the one thing its Lord cares about–that they should do what he tells them! He would deliver them from themselves into the liberty of the sons of God, make them his brothers; they leave him to vaunt their church.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus
(from which will come 220 - 223).

2 Likes
1151

(221) The Same

It is to me an especially glad thought that the Lord came so near us as to be angry with us. The more we think of Jesus being angry with us, the more we feel that we must get nearer and nearer to him–get within the circle of his wrath, out of the sin that makes him angry, and near to him where sin cannot come. There is no quenching of his love in the anger of Jesus.
…
That he should be crucified was a horror to them; they would have made him a king, and ruined his father’s work. He preferred the cruelty of his enemies to the kindness of his friends. The former with evil intent wrought his father’s will; the latter with good intent would have frustrated it. His disciples troubled him with their unbelieving expostulations. Let us know that the poverty of our idea of Jesus–how much more our disobedience to him!–thwarts his progress to victory, delays the coming of the kingdom of heaven. Many a man valiant for Christ, but not understanding him, and laying on himself and his fellows burdens against nature, has therein done will-worship and would-be service for which Christ will give him little thanks, which indeed may now be moving his holy anger. Where we do that we ought not, and could have helped it, be moved to anger against us, O Christ! do not treat us as if we were not worth being displeased with; let not our faults pass as if they were of no weight. Be angry with us, holy brother, wherein we are to blame; where we do not understand, have patience with us, and open our eyes, and give us strength to obey, until at length we are the children of the Father even as thou. … Make us able to be angry and not sin; to be angry nor seek revenge the smallest; to be angry and full of forgiveness. We will not be content till our very anger is love.

The Lord did not call the leprosy to return and seize again upon the man who disobeyed him. He may have deserved it, but the Lord did not do it. He did not wrap the self-confident seeing men in the cloud of their old darkness because they wrapped themselves in the cloud of disobedience. He let them go. Of course they failed of their well-being by it; for to say a man might disobey and be none the worse, would be to say that no may be yes, and light sometimes darkness; it would be to say that the will of God is not man’s bliss.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus.

1 Like
1152

Merv, I just went ahead and listened to the whole sermon. It was worth it.

MacDonald is very Kierkegaardian in the way his logic works, and his ability to see a path clearly that most of us would never notice. He makes the very best of the very worst, and uses it to give hope and encouragement.

2 Likes
1153

I find that in him too! And I think this next bit continues so well in that vein - a bit of what all would be included in the bliss of real life.

(222) The God of Remembrance

I do not mean that God would have even his closest presence make us forget or cease to desire that of our friend. God forbid! The love of God is the perfecting of every love. He is not the God of oblivion, but of eternal remembrance. There is no past with him. So far is he from such jealousy as we have all heard imputed to him, his determination is that his sons and daughters shall love each other perfectly. He gave us to each other to belong to each other for ever. He does not give to take away; with him is no variableness or shadow of turning.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: The Displeasure of Jesus

2 Likes
1154

This is what I see reflected at the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, too. Jesus preaches the Gospel to us through the physical elements that we are holding and taking together, so that we understand our union with him, but in performing this sign act together, we also see and experience our union with each other.
It is both a sermon, and a physical and performative reminder of the state in which we now exist and live.

Since we are told to perform this act and frequency is assumed in the command, I think it is intended to reinforce just what MacDonald says in this recent quote.

[Emphasis altered]

2 Likes