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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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 ”.
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 ”.
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.
And then there’s the hedonism which does not exclude the rest of reality, this life and the next. It’s knowable now and there is nothing hypothetical about it. Ears to hear and all that.
I think I understand what you are saying, at least in part, Mark. If the only thing Christians, or anyone with some sort of theistic belief, focus on is “the sweet by and by”, then yes; I agree with you. And there is plenty of that.
MacDonald has been hard for me to take at times, too, but I think for different reasons. This part not so much, because I think he is talking about what Christians should be focusing on, and that is a reciprocal loving relationship with God through Jesus, as well as demonstration of that love to others now – both as a result of that relationship with God and out of obedience to him. Not as a fearful drudgery, but as an overflow of the love that we have experienced ourselves.
Because we are not naturally loving, we’ve been shown how and told to do it.
I think about the ways I’m aware of that you and Lia show (have been showing) love for and to each other, and that it costs you both something. It’s not for some future reward but for the reward now of doing the loving and being in that loving relationship.
Plenty of that with Jesus and Paul too. “If Christ is not risen, we are to be most pitied of all people.” For the joy set before him, he was able to endure grotesque suffering.
Kierkegaard looked forward to an intimate friendship with his beloved Regina in the life to come.
Pilgrims for whom the world was not worthy.
And yet we pray for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. That his kingdom would come. A kingdom that is now and not yet.
Yes, that. And it is knowable now, not “hypothetically”, and enjoyable. The factual accounts which I am wont to repeat are evidence of those who do indeed know, and I am among them. History is replete with us.
(And some of the evidence is just plain fun. SBO? Not so much. But at least I know to whom I’m thankful.)
In the main we love because we cannot help it. There is no merit in it: how should there be in any love?–but neither is it selfish. There are many who confound righteousness with merit, and think there is nothing righteous where there is nothing meritorious. ‘If it makes you happy to love,’ they say, ‘where is your merit? It is only selfishness!’ There is no merit, I reply, yet the love that is born in us is our salvation from selfishness. It is of the very essence of righteousness. Because a thing is joyful, it does not follow that I do it for the joy of it; yet when the joy is in others, the joy is pure. That certain joys should be joys, is the very denial of selfishness. The man would be a demoniacally selfish man, whom love itself did not make joyful.
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Self-Denial ”.
Nice of you to include this.
Which, in the context of the discussion I was having with Mark, is what I was addressing in my entire reply to Mark. While focusing on Mark’s frequently-stated concerns about Christians focused on an unknown future, while ignoring the known present.
I wonder how Mark’s concerns, if taken to heart by “the” church, in the context of Christian faith, could transform the way the church is present now on the earth and what different impact it would have here and now?
I wonder what SK had to say about finitude in contrast to the infinite, which of the two is higher, and which of the two is a matter of faith. How he would classify his thoughts about Regine in the context of questions of finitude and the infinite?
Kant could be held up as the poster child for that sentiment. MacDonald is once more in my good graces and I’ll try to remember the next time he seems to be veering off the track on one side it may well be for dramatic effect when re enters on the other.
Do you ask, ‘What is faith in him?’ I answer, The leaving of your way, your objects, your self, and the taking of his and him; the leaving of your trust in men, in money, in opinion, in character, in atonement itself, and doing as he tells you . I can find no words strong enough to serve for the weight of this necessity–this obedience. It is the one terrible heresy of the church, that it has always been presenting something else than obedience as faith in Christ. The work of Christ is not the Working Christ, any more than the clothing of Christ is the body of Christ. If the woman who touched the hem of his garment had trusted in the garment and not in him who wore it, would she have been healed? And the reason that so many who believe about Christ rather than in him, get the comfort they do, is that, touching thus the mere hem of his garment, they cannot help believing a little in the live man inside the garment.
And I guess there is a 20% recurrence rate.
But at least I know to whom I’m thankful.)
