MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

(276) The Blotting Out

if He pleases to forget anything, then He can forget it. And I think that is what He does with our sins—that is, after He has got them away from us, once we are clean from them altogether. It would be a dreadful thing if He forgot them before that, and left them sticking fast to us and defiling us. How then should we ever be made clean?—What else does the prophet Isaiah mean when he says, ‘Thou hast cast my sins behind Thy back?’ Is not that where He does not choose to see them any more?

As found in MacDonald’s “Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood” Chapter 28.

3 Likes

WT Wright had an interesting take on sin in this video, relating it to a fable about how the fox rids himself of fleas. I’ve started the video at this part and it takes about a minute, though you know what it’s like listening to Wright. Stopping after that part may not be easy. Drat it isn’t letting me share the clip so you’d have to scroll to about the 15:30 mark to get to it.

This is beautiful. Thanks, Merv!
No grudge. No moment where the evil past slips out accidentally. It’s done and done for. It doesn’t exist anywhere ever again! Which means we are entirely free of it for all time.

1 Like

Thanks for the video link, Mark. Yeah - I’m not sure yet what I make of Wright’s comparison with how the fox rids itself of fleas. I’m not comfortable with that comparison for some reason, but still need to meditate on and think about why not. Perhaps it is because I’m so enamored with GM’s view of atonement (as partially expressed in the last GM post above, and which I - along with @Kendel - find to be so beautiful. It isn’t that Wright’s comparison is contrary to GM’s necessarily - and yet … Wright’s view seems to have something of a seeming bit of “spiritual magic” about it (for lack of a better phrase on my part) - where Jesus takes on the consequences (punishments) for our sins. And that just seems to me to edge closer to the substitutionary atonement model that GM so loaths. Will have to continue thinking about this.

(277) On a chapter in Isaiah

And the sermon I preached to myself and through myself to my people, was that which the stars had preached to me, and thereby driven me to my knees by the mill-door. I took for my text, “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed;” and then I proceeded to show them how the glory of the Lord was to be revealed. I preached to myself that throughout this fortieth chapter of the prophecies of Isaiah, the power of God is put side by side with the weakness of men, not that He, the perfect, may glory over His feeble children; not that He may say to them—“Look how mighty I am, and go down upon your knees and worship”—for power alone was never yet worthy of prayer; but that he may say thus: “Look, my children, you will never be strong but with MY strength. I have no other to give you. And that you can get only by trusting in me. I cannot give it you any other way. There is no other way. But can you not trust in me? Look how strong I am. You wither like the grass. Do not fear. Let the grass wither. Lay hold of my word, that which I say to you out of my truth, and that will be life in you that the blowing of the wind that withers cannot reach.

As found in MacDonald’s “Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood” Chapter 30.

[Lewis’ excerpt of this (at least as it appears in my Kindle edition) omits the ‘but’ … as in “you will never be strong with MY strength…” - causing me significant confusion until I saw what I presume is the actual quote from the above linked source. Changing the meaning entirely!]

1 Like

Be strong and courageous, @Mervin_Bitikofer ! You can say it: Wright holds to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). I like both MacDonald and Wright. Some of their views are simply irreconcilable. They don’t agree. But really. How many people have ever held the same theology as MacDonald? It’s insightful. But it’s unique. It’s challenging, which I think is part of its greatest value. Along with his superlative concept of God.

In other news:
As one steeped in PSA, I though his clarification of Romans 8 in the video from @MarkD were helpful and valuable. (I’m adding to my list of things to learn about: Wright’s New Perspective on Paul.)

I’m looking forward to your conclusions about the fox and wool fable. I’ve never heard it before.

1 Like

I think he says it is and it isn’t like that, but I’ve been looking at too many videos with him to be sure where. My impression was his reasons why it isn’t like that were pretty over riding of the reasons for thinking it is.

Edited to say I found it: In the same video backtrack to the 12 minute mark where the interviewer brings up PSA. It is Wright’s response to that which leads up to the fox story. He basically says context is everything and breaks it down, continuing a little ways past the fable.

Yep. I was just writing time stamps for that section. 12:00-16:00, 16:32-17:20. Skip the fox fable; it doesn’t help.

Wright explains very succinctly the particular view of the need for the death of Jesus and what it does, called Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but clarifies the relationship between God the Father and Jesus, God the Son, which is often misunderstood as, in Brian McLaren’s words “cosmic child abuse”.

Wright does not reject or question PSA, but clarifies it, correcting
a commonly held error that leads to a misunderstanding of the character of God the Father.

MacDonald absolutely rejects this view, as do many Christians today. However, many of us don’t understand a way to comprehend the death of Jesus as the Christ, or its relationship to sin and salvation as described in the New Testament, except through concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I am not interested here in arguing the merits or demerits of PSA, but to point out that it is the view that Wright holds. One may like Wright because of, in spite of or without reference to PSA. But it is Wright’s understanding of how the death of Jesus functions in God’s plan of salvation.

Here are the texts he refers to:

Primarily Romans 8, the key text in that part of the discussion:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.1 2 For the law of hthe Spirit of life ihas set you2 free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For jGod has done what the law, kweakened by the flesh, lcould not do. mBy sending his own Son nin the likeness of sinful flesh and ofor sin,3 he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that pthe righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, qwho walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For rthose who live according to the flesh set their minds on sthe things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on tthe things of the Spirit. 6 For to set uthe mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is vhostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; windeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact xthe Spirit of God dwells in you. yAnyone who does not have zthe Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of ahim who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus4 from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies bthrough his Spirit who dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers,5 we are debtors, cnot to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you dput to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are eled by the Spirit of God are fsons6 of God. 15 For gyou did not receive hthe spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of iadoption as sons, by whom we cry, j“Abba! Father!” 16 kThe Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then lheirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, mprovided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time nare not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for othe revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation pwas subjected to futility, not willingly, but qbecause of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that rthe creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that sthe whole creation thas been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have uthe firstfruits of the Spirit, vgroan inwardly as wwe wait eagerly for adoption as sons, xthe redemption of our bodies. 24 For yin this hope we were saved. Now zhope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we await for it with patience.

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For bwe do not know what to pray for as we ought, but cthe Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And dhe who searches hearts knows what is ethe mind of the Spirit, because7 the Spirit fintercedes for the saints gaccording to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together hfor good,8 for ithose who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he jforeknew he also kpredestined lto be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be mthe firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also njustified, and those whom he justified he also oglorified.

31 What then shall we say to these things? pIf God is for us, who can be9 against us? 32 qHe who did not spare his own Son but rgave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? sIt is God who justifies. 34 tWho is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—uwho is at the right hand of God, vwho indeed is interceding for us.10 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

w“For your sake xwe are being killed all the day long;

we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than yconquerors through zhim who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Also Romans 7

4 Likewise, my brothers, gyou also have died hto the law ithrough the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, jin order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work kin our members lto bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the mnew way of nthe Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.3

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment sthat promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, tseizing an opportunity through the commandment, udeceived me and through it killed me. 12 So vthe law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, wsold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For xI do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with ythe law, that it is good. 17 So now zit is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells ain me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 bFor I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, cit is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For dI delight in the law of God, ein my inner being, 23 but I see in my members fanother law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from gthis body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

1 Corinthians 15:1-28

Now I would remind you, brothers,1 of the gospel gI preached to you, which you received, hin which you stand, 2 and by which iyou are being saved, if you jhold fast to the word I preached to you—kunless you believed in vain.

3 For lI delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died mfor our sins nin accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised oon the third day pin accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that qhe appeared to Cephas, then rto the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to sJames, then tto all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, uhe appeared also to me. 9 For vI am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because wI persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, xI worked harder than any of them, ythough it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, zhow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, athen not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that bhe raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and cyou are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who dhave fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope2 in this life only, ewe are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact fChrist has been raised from the dead, gthe firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as hby a man came death, iby a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For jas in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then kat his coming lthose who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers mthe kingdom to God the Father after destroying nevery rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign ountil he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be pdestroyed is death. 27 For q“God3 has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When rall things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that sGod may be all in all.

Well it doesn’t help LH understanding but for getting the big picture maybe it does. Doesn’t contribute a lot for me however; but then neither did the text from all those scriptures. I thought what he said about sending Jesus being like God reaching down to people to include them in the making of a new creation was helpful. Not by destroying the earth and taking with him to a different place those who’d ‘passed the test’ but seeing the earth in a new light and working together toward a better earth here and now. Jesus as example to be followed, not as a guide to lead us away.

The fox fable doesn’t help determine whether Wright accepts PSA or not. That is why I skipped it.

It’s fine not to be interested in or inspired by the texts I included. But in a very left hemisphered way, Wright was discussing those as well as a large part of the historical books of the Old Testament, which I didn’t include.

His description of Jesus’s work included much more than an example to be followed. Wright was talking about the real God-man Jesus as a real blood sacrifice for real sin that real humans commit. This is an example we cannot follow, not for the same purpose. The texts I included give some clarification on that relationship; they are the source texts for Wright’s understanding of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

There is plenty of room for both hemispheres in Christian theology, belief and practice. I think it’s normal to use both to some degree, not always in the same way at the same time. I have seen evidence that Wright does both well. I’ve heard him sing. I’ve heard him lecture.

As a Christian who probably favors my left hemisphere, I’ve put up with a lot of “hints” about the deficiencies of “head knowledge” vs “heart knowlege.” It’s wearing. It’s discouraging. I’m tired.

3 Likes

I’ll try not to become a nettlesome apologist for intuition but I am an advocate as I’m sure you know. It is hard not to speak for it when the issue arises but I’ll avoid the opportunities your remarks provide as much as I can.

Thanks, Mark and Kendel both for the link and attention to specific times stamps in it - I had listened to this video in its entirety some time before, but now, honing in on the areas you call attention to - my refreshed attention to that specifically is very much of interest to me.

In which case I apologize for bringing this up - maybe one last time - but let me quickly add, Kendel, I don’t bring it up to dismiss the left (or right) brain, but hopefully to bring them together. Forgive me if your PTSD is still triggered. My impressions so far of both Wright and GM is that Wright would be, by far, the more credentialed scholar, with far more extensive research and work for intellectual publication than what GM probably ever did. And for GM’s part, I would hold GM’s heart / fiery spirit up as an example to match any one else’s then or since, just from what I know of GM from his own extensive corpus of writing of a much different sort, but no less impressive to me in its own way.

Now - you may be bracing yourself for some anticipated conclusion here … “Oh - then you’re putting GM forward as a ‘right-brained’ person and Wright as the quintessential left-brainer.” Not quite. Though that simplification may be tempting to some, I would say instead that I think both men embody and embrace the importance of both (as I bet they would if you were to put the question to them directly). I.e. I don’t see MacDonald as dismissive - even just one whit - of intellect and the need for solid reasoning. Indeed, how could one write to such great effect as he did without the sharp acumen of reason being brought to bear with laser focus on the sacred page as its research subject - so valuable to him because of the Person it so helped connect him to. And nor do I see Wright (his intellectual acumen unquestioned by most any of us here) turning away - even just one whit - from his pastoral sensitivities and ‘heart’ in all that he says and does. So I see both men as an affirmation to a holistic approach in this - which is where I’m at too then.

And if you’re still fine with any further commenting … I’ll say this much then for the alleged differences between these two in their approach to PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement). I put in the word ‘alleged’, not because I think they must necessarily be brought together for my or our purposes here. While I have no reason to doubt you when you insist that they may be irreconcileable, I will at least hold to the possibility that they may also be reconcileable. But I won’t attempt such a thing here yet (at least not in this post - or prior to any further expressed interest in the matter), other than to say this: When I relistened to Wright’s reaction to Moore’s PSA question put directly to him at your helpful time-stamp, Wright’s answer very much intrigued me in a hopeful sort of way. His disavowal the the ‘child-abusing God’ caricature goes a long way to help ameliorate my own (and I think GM’s) concern over where all the PSA theory has gone in the cultural (and even then Christian) mind. So Wright sees fit to nuance what he thinks are the important bits of “PSA”. And his specific appeal to Romans 8:3-4 as the heart of the matter was very much of interest to me in that regard. Wright’s point is well taken, that it is sin that is condemned in those verses - not Jesus. And as far as the ‘satisfaction of the Torah (law)’ portion of those verses goes - that can be enlisted in different ways here. One can very much indeed choose to see this as some sort of validation of pagan sacrificial rituals where the caricature has taken them … “we’re experiencing an extended drought … I know! Let’s kill Steve!” - is the caricature we so rightly find idiotic and morally abhorrent - and therefore definitely beneath any God worthy of any worship at all. But the Romans verses can also be taken other ways too. It was widely recognized from the Torah that wickedness leads to calamity and righteousness leads to prosperity and blessing - a covenantal promise, and one that in its twisted state is easily corrupted into what we now recognize (and rightly reject) as ‘the prosperity gospel’. But - our needed caution against that notwithstanding - it was, and even in some important way still is, part of the very promises of scripture. And as such, Christ and Paul needed to see it dealt with. Christ upends it as he refutes it head-on in his very own disciples about what the causes of calamity are (it wasn’t this man’s or his parents’ sin that led to his blindness … there are other things going on here for God’s glory that you need to be seeing here regarding how this stuff works…) And Paul, if we zero in on the Romans 8 selection could be seen as saying: All the trash that is so associated with sin - Jesus came, and with no sin at all of his own, still let himself suffer the full brunt of consequences that accompany sin - and he let it all happen to him without sinking into sinful response himself. He bore it righteously. So in Christ we can see a merging of these two worlds. Yes - sin does lead to evil in the world - and indeed we see that evil descending onto Jesus to do its worst. But we also see Jesus then do what both sin and the law that reveals that sin both failed to do: bring salvation to the world.

I simply see it the latter way (I think - along with Wright if I at all understood correctly his response in the video), and in doing so, I don’t think Wright and MacDonald are quite so far apart as might be first imagined on this. But I also fully acknowledge that my view into Wright’s views here, just based on a couple of minutes of his talking, is through an extremely tiny aperture compared to the enormous corpus of stuff still unread by me that he’s written. My guess may be totally off, and I’m fine living with that - so what if a couple of people I highly respect are on opposite sides of important questions. I’ve been living that kind of life for some time now and it’s just another day on a sea with great ocean swells. I’ve got my sea legs.

Thanks again - both of you for calling attention to this.

2 Likes

(278) Providence

The leaves are dancing in the light wind that gives them each its share of the sun, and my trouble has passed away for ever, like the storm of that night and the unrest of that strange Sabbath.

Such comforts would come to us oftener from Nature, if we really believed that our God was the God of Nature; that when He made, or rather when He makes, He means; that not His hands only, but His heart too, is in the making of those things; that, therefore, the influences of Nature upon human minds and hearts are because He intended them. And if we believe that our God is everywhere, why should we not think Him present even in the coincidences that sometimes seem so strange? For, if He be in the things that coincide, He must be in the coincidence of those things.

As found in MacDonald’s “Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood” Chapter 30.

1 Like

I very much resonate with these sentiments. God is in everything and every being right up to and including ourselves. In every bit of dust and form of microbe, I believe God experiences the world with and through us. As a relational being God only becomes self aware by way of the perspective of ‘others’. At first there are no others so God withdraws his own dominion so that every form of creature can find its own way in relation to its neighbors and, with increased complexity, become self aware in the process.

Reflecting on how any of us ever become sentient I don’t see how it can happen without the underlying support of a small part of the being of God bequeathed to us that we might both come to know ourselves better together. A very unequal relationship in which we are very much the more dependent and junior partner but one in which we may yet be of service to the one that makes us possible at all.

But like every creature with a brain we have two centers of attention, one for narrow focussed attention dedicated to efficient mastery of the acquisition of what sustains us bodily. The other is dedicated to encountering whatever comes to meet us in the world with an emphasis on vigilance against what may threaten us as other creatures pursue their own sustenance. In our case the narrowed form of attention has specialized to allow offline consideration of the world in abstracted form where we weigh pros and cons of actions in advance both to improve our social ability and to overcome adversity.

I think sin arises when we over emphasize strategic advantage over every other consideration. when we we forget our dependence on God and become puffed up over our own capacity to determine the outcome of every situation through the unchecked pursuit of the will to power we have truly gone over to the dark side. Then we can treat each other as only as a means to an end and even talk of God can become just one more form of manipulation. At that point we are truly lost.

1 Like

NT Wright is a master of the narrative, and he says in the video that you need the whole Bible to understand the narrative, which is because it has been composed that way, and of course, for many the narrative is compelling. The problem that was mentioned is that when we talk to others, there is a growing inability to jump on the narrative vehicle and travel with it. You see this in the choice of literature that people make, and anything that makes people think is often deemed too complicated.

In addition, the multitude of churches suffer under the sins of some, and so the narrative becomes a decoration for Christmas and Easter, but it has little to do with us personally. I get the feeling that we must teach people how the drama and the paradox of human experience can only be approached via narratives. That is the whole reason for stories really, even if some are also entertaining. A story is there to transport some truth or it is just banal.

2 Likes

Of course, many feel the left vs. right brain is more metaphorical than literal, but is still a useful idea for discussing different ways of processing information.
Left brain vs. right brain: fact or fiction? - Work Life by Atlassian.

3 Likes

What does that say about special providence, remembering that he denied its existence before.

Metaphorical or literal it is useful, until judgement is attached to it. Then the message is that one cannot rightly comprehend, because one comprehends and processes wrongly. I am ready to start singing “Jesus was a Capricorn.”

@Rob_Brewer this just sounds pompous.

2 Likes

And/or answers to prayer.

I guess it means you were wrong about him denying its existence then.

Yeah, I guess. Not. Do you have an example where he talks about specific answered prayer?