MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Randy

I’ve been thinking on the reasons for love. We’re interesting creatures–we need a rule, it seems, to love unselfishly. We commit to love in marriage–I remember a friend admitting that they loved their spouse because they promised. As a parent, I realize more that I love my children because it is right, and that they won’t fulfil my desires as a child (nor I theirs as a parent).

Yes! This.

One of the [many] pitfalls of our device-connected world that so many of us are immersed in is that we become enculturated to a mental diet of the most scintillatingly captivating entertainment; we expect nothing less than stellar mental stimulation and education from material that, after all, has risen to the top of favorite public attention amongst the avalanche of competition. Any meme we see is immediately catchy and witty - anything less or that has any flaw to speak of, immediately is classified as ‘drivel’.

I’m glad that my own marriage and formidable ‘kid-raising’ years happened prior to much of these present obsessions of ours … because … pity the newly marrieds today who must inevitably discover they are married to … a real person. And any kids they have will end up being … real kids. Meaning, you’re going to have to learn how to (at the very least - occassionally!) be bored with each other, how to accept that most of the words uttered in your household will not be the scripted, witty brilliance that we’ve mistaken for our entertainment birthright.

What I hear MacDonald offering as a ‘beyond this’ kind of thought, though; is that love is not (and never in its true form was) a kind of drudgery. The ‘duty’ of it may be the only skeleton there during long seasons - yes. But if it is to be love as God intends and created, it will not remain that way, and we can have a very active role in helping it not remain that way; by at least working toward making ourselves more loveable, and even helping others too in that same quest. There can be real and healthy flesh on that skeleton of duty. When we finally see it all as God sees it, there will no longer be any thought of duty; not because duty is gone, but because we have infinitely superseded and surpassed it.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

“How, then, is the man to be loved by me? Why should I love my neighbour as myself?”

We must not answer “Because the Lord says so.” It is because the Lord says so that the man is inquiring after some help to obey. No man can love his neighbour merely because the Lord says so.

This is so often true among those who ardently want to love and serve God by bringing others to do the same. From the outside it seems as if dishing out God’s word in rebuke evokes in the rebuker the indignation he imagines to be God’s attitude toward any who do not recognize his rightful authority. But the pettiness of insisting on respect for the manner in which one attempts to convey God’s word is all that the hearer in the encounter receives. The rebuker may inject that at least he has done his best to do God’s will but there comes a point when it may be better to assess how adequate that best has been. If the one who rebukes does so only from duty and respects God primarily out of fear, it is doubtful he is ready to convey the love God offers - probably because he himself has not been able to properly receive it.

Dang I may have jumped in too soon just as the exchange between you and Randy got good. But now I have Santa duties to perform beginning in the kitchen. Enjoy the day!

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

No fears of interrupting anything good, Mark! You’re part of what makes exchanges here good in the first place! Happy Santa duties.

@MarkD

If the one who rebukes does so only from duty and respects God primarily out of fear, it is doubtful he is ready to convey the love God offers …

I think this is an important insight. Nobody wants any received love to come from a sense of duty alone. And in fact we are rather sensitive about being the recipients of such ‘love’ - and rightly so. How impoverished must any believer’s thoughts of God be that such highest of loves - the source of Love itself, could be thought to be reduced to that.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Just now ran across these lines from the book “The Baron’s Apprenticeship” that you put me on to, Randy!

Instead of blaming as a matter of course the person who does not believe in a God, we should think first whether his notional God is a God that ought, or a God that ought not to be believed in. Perhaps he only is to be blamed who, by inattention to duty, has become less able to believe in a God than he was once: because he did not obey the true voice, whencesoever it came, God may have to let him taste what it would be to have no God. For aught I know, a man may have been born of so many generations of unbelief, that now, at this moment, he cannot believe; that now, at this moment, he has no notion of a God at all, and cannot care whether there be a God or not; but he can mind what he knows he ought to mind. That will, that alone can clear the moral atomosphere, and make it possible for the true idea of a God to be born into it.

The above passage was all in reference to the main story character who has grown up with mainly antagonistic thoughts toward his theistically religious culture because of his perceptions of the people in his community and how he saw them representing such a God (also through his step dad’s non-believing eyes). And this character is falling in love with a woman for the first time - though he’s only just coming into contact with this new-for-him thing called ‘love’.

[Randy]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

he has no notion of a God at all, and cannot care whether there be a God or not; but he can mind what he knows he ought to mind. That will, that alone can clear the moral atomosphere, and make it possible for the true idea of a God to be born into

I like this … pretty much typical Macdonald…that doing your duty has the godly, not just common, grace of communing with God. He also notes that God is not removed by some gnostic knowledge, but meets us where we are. In other portions of the book, he notes that the protagonist Richard can be more noble in terms of duty and love to fellow man than many who take on God’s label. Thanks

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Randy

I’ve been thinking on the reasons for love. We’re interesting creatures–we need a rule, it seems, to love unselfishly.

Huh.
 

@Randy

My children and I are happier when we don’t expect fulfillment, and do only the duty we were asked to do.

The antinomian, fearful of being pharisaical, decries ‘the law’, declaring observance of it to be legalistic and antithetical to grace. Rightly construed, promoting obedience to the law accentuates God’s grace through Jesus, precisely because we all fail to be obedient in so many ways.

And thank you for that, @Randy! There are rules, ‘laws of love’. They are not only rules, but rulers, and we are told in the epistles to do exactly that, to measure ourselves. Jesus more than intimates it as well, in at least Matthew 5 where he speaks of good deeds and the laws of love continuing, offering a cup of water to the thirsty, caring for widows and orphans, even if we need to do it sacrificially.

Antinomians on the other hand are effectively denying laws of love. For instance, speed limit laws and reckless driving laws are laws of love, rulers to measure ourselves by. We are not behaving lovingly towards our neighbor, the neighbor whom we are supposed to love, if we are driving recklessly or at 50mph in a residential neighborhood, endangering their children. Those who say there is no law incumbent on Christians except ‘luv’ are effectively denying speed limits and the underlying laws and telos, denying the need for speed limit signs and speedometers because as Christians all we need to do is “be loving.”

[klw]

Regarding speed limits, I heard one pastor talk about how he was once vacationing in Germany with his family. For, fun, he decided to go on the autobahn (where there are no speed limits as you know). As he was accelerating down the highway getting a good dose of adrenaline from the thrill, his wife beside him said quietly “remember that you love your children”. Suddenly, the jolt of that hit his brain and the “thrill” of pushing the limits faded, as he slowed waaayy down to a normal road speed. The pastor said that love had succeeded in curbing his behaviour in absence of a “law”–because love of another “governed” his internal state-a relationship of his own choice, not by external coercion. The problem with legal speed limits, he said, is that it is simple human nature to always push the boundaries. To rebel. Can I get away with going 5 km/h over the limit before I get caught? Can I get away with 10? Not that he was advocating getting rid of speed limits in a world filled with a lack of love. Simply making the point that laws don’t “solve” the fundamental problem of human rebellion.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@klw

he slowed waaayy down to a normal road speed.

But he had a ‘law’ in his mind that he was measuring against, “a reasonable speed limit”. I would think it likely that came from posted speed limits that he was accustomed to. (I used to drive a little sports car, so I hear you! ; - ) Sports car drivers tend to fallaciously elevate their and their cars’ abilities to be ‘safe’ – love is not all you need.
 

@klw

Simply making the point that laws don’t “solve” the fundamental problem of human rebellion.

I certainly agree. But they are still measurements, and we are still told to test ourselves. Against what?

Grace to trust and obey is what solves the fundamental problem of human rebellion (for each of us individually), and that only comes through Jesus. (That is one of the reasons we celebrate Christmas. ; - )

[klw]

Not necessarily, he said he wasn’t trying to “target” any particular speed limit, only drive in a way that was safe (loving) to those others in the car with him… To match his behaviour against the standard of love. Yes, I agree that standard is demonstrated ultimately by Jesus–who kills our inner rebellion.

Of course, you raise the ethical conundrum of what to do if one is alone in one’s hot little sports car with no one else’s love on the line, no one else to care for… how to then behave? Is there something about love towards oneself? so that one may effectively love others in the future?

Merry Christmas!

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

(Jesus obeyed the laws of love and told us to do the same. ; - )

Merry Christmas to you too, my sister!

[Randy]

@klw

. Simply making the point that laws don’t “solve” the fundamental problem of human rebellion

I think that this is good…and also had another thought that this good illustration prompted after reading a copy of Cynthia Tobias’ book on strong willed children. One person’s struggle is not another’s. Some of us really struggle with rules, and others are rule lovers…not that those are the less apt to sin, as with the older brother in the prodigal son. It is interesting how Jesus’parables deal with both tendencies.

For example, I was not one who ever wanted to race a car, touch paint or walk on grass where the sign said not to. My fault would be to look down on those who did …which would be failing in the spirit of the law, much more than the letter.

So, Macdonald’s writings may deal more with the heart of the compliant older child, as opposed to the strong willed child prone to overt rule breaking, as I think he may have been compliant one himself.

Again, both sins can be equally damaging. However, as with Henri Nouwen’s meditation on the Return of the Prodigal Son, sometimes it is harder to look for the heart beyond the outward behavior.

I like your illustration. Thanks!

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Tim Keller’s The Prodigal God speaks to that too. You might enjoy it, if you haven’t read it. (If you have read it, then it’s too late – you either enjoyed it or you didn’t. ; - )

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(48) My Neighbor

A man must not choose his neighbour; he must take the neighbour that God sends him. In him, whoever he be, lies, hidden or revealed, a beautiful brother. The neighbour is just the man who is next to you at the moment, the man with whom any business has brought you in contact.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “Love Thy Neighbor ”

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

A man must not choose his neighbour; he must take the neighbour that God sends him.

Again we may ask about Pharisees and Sadducees. See the brief discussion above (five shortish comments ; - ) starting here. I think it is not illegitimate to pray for such a one that they be ‘waylaid’ to be made aware of their need of God’s mercy and grace.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Dale

would have had empathy for, helped and loved a waylaid one along the dangerous highway even knowing what they were, but would he have been ‘loving’ by giving him a platform, allowing him on the stage, so to speak, in effect endorsing him?

I’m not sure how you’re making this leap, Dale. How do you get from “giving badly needed help to a waylaid stranger” all the way to “endorsing and promoting all beliefs any such a stranger may have”?

The Good Samaritan parable is all about the former and has nothing whatsoever to do with the latter. So I’m not sure how you get that.

I do take it you’re all worried that we “endorse sets of beliefs” around here that we shouldn’t - which is a separate discussion I think.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

So I’m not sure how you get that.

Actually, you pretty much followed in that same direction.
 

@Mervin_Bitikofer

That brings up an interesting point, Dale. So if we had asked Jesus to continue that story of the Good Samaritan, and speak of how the rescuer and the rescued might have continued (or not) to relate to each other weeks or years later…

[Randy]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

The Good Samaritan parable is all about the former and has nothing whatsoever to do with the latter. So I’m not sure how you get that.

I love this parable. I’m still learning more about it from reading what you and @Dale are discussing. If I understand, it’ about how two peoples, who are perhaps more closely related to each other than to any other surrounding groups, dislike each other intensely because of ideology. It seems we in the same families tend to annoy each other even better than strangers, doesn’t it?

I had a Closed Brethren friend a few years ago who told me that at one point, he realized he was spending more time with complete nonbelievers than with Christians who were only slightly different from him–because his unit was so exclusive (honestly, that should lead us to realize all Christians should be as kind to non Christians, too).

It was really similar to the Good Samaritan story, because at a point that his wife needed support from him during his med school that he did not have time to give, an evangelical Christian (a Samaritan), took 2 weeks of call. He said at that time, he started being more open.

In spite of that, he did not leave the exclusiveness of his group. In fact, though our families were quite close, he could not even let us come to his daughter’s communion service, as we could violate the communion table.

Acting out Christ’s advice can break down barriers, though. It also illustrates that we don’t have to agree on all details, to care about each other. It may start the process, but it will take me eternity to see it from God’s point of view.

I’ve wondered sometimes how that could work out in modern warfare. Around here, we see a lot of ads for a foundation that helps disabled veterans. Do you think we should set up a similar rehabilitation foundation for disabled enemy vets, say in Russia, Libya, and Iraq?

[Kendel]

Thanks for continuing to share these, Merv, and for the great discussion I have (mostly) finally caught up on. Some will remain unsavored, I am afraid.
But now that the Christmas prep is done and past, I think I will be back on track. Or at least closer to on track.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I wonder if the situation is similar to seeking compromises politically with fellow citizens with different priorities. I desire that everyone get enough of what matters to them to be satisfied within our political system. I don’t always endorse the ends they desire anymore than they do mine. But living together peacefully and productively requires putting compromise over getting everything my way.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(49) The Same

This love of our neighbour is the only door out of the dungeon of self, where we mope and mow, striking sparks, and rubbing phosphorescences out of the walls, and blowing our own breath in our own nostrils, instead of issuing to the fair sunlight of God, the sweet winds of the universe.

As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “Love Thy Neighbor ”