The Evangelical Universalist Forum

An Untraditional MacDonald and Lewis Theodicy

Theology Philosophical
#1

Here are two unique and rarely recognized points, made by both Lewis and MacDonald regarding the necessity of a separation in the creative act.

“I imagine the difficulty of doing this thing, of effecting this creation, this separation from himself such that will in the creature shall be possible–I imagine, I say, the difficulty of such creation so great, that for it God must begin inconceivably far back in the infinitesimal regions of beginnings–not to say before anything in the least resembling man, but eternal miles beyond the last farthest-pushed discovery in protoplasm–to set in motion that division from himself which in its grand result should be individuality, consciousness, choice, and conscious choice–choice at last pure, being the choice of the right, the true, the divinely harmonious. Hence the final end of the separation is not individuality; that is but a means to it; the final end is oneness–an impossibility without it. For there can be no unity, no delight of love, no harmony, no good in being, where there is but one. Two at least are needed for oneness; and the greater the number of individuals, the greater, the lovelier, the richer, the diviner is the possible unity.”

     - MacDonald - Life, Unspoken Sermons

“I sometimes wonder if we have even begun to understand what is involved in the very concept of creation. If God will create, He will make something to be, and yet to be not Himself. To be created is, in some sense, to be ejected or separated. Can it be that the more perfect the creature is, the further this separation must at some point be pushed? lt is saints, not common people, who experience the “dark night.” It is men and angels, not beasts, who rebel. Inanimate matter sleeps in the bosom of the Father. The “hiddenness” of God perhaps presses most painfully on those who are in another way nearest to Him, and therefore God Himself, made man, will of all men be by God most forsaken? One of the seventeenth-century divines says, “By pretending to be visible God could only deceive the world.” Perhaps He does pretend just a little to simple souls who need a full measure of “sensible consolation.” Not deceiving them, but tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. Of course I’m not saying like Niebuhr that evil is inherent in finitude. That would identify the creation with the fall and make God the author of evil. But perhaps there is an anguish, an alienation, a crucifixion involved in the creative act. Yet He who alone can judge judges the far-off consummation to be worth it.”

- Lewis - Letters to Malcolm

My question is, can we build a theodicy - a response to the problem of evil - based on this concept? For myself, I’m convinced that evil cannot actually come from God (and Lewis would seem to agree, based on the second quote), and that only a free willed source outside of God could cause it. But, is it possible to take these ideas and form a reason why free will exists, other than the traditional one that “it is necessary to do good”? It seems if so, that we could possibly unite the best ideas of Arminianism and Calvinism, for we would have an explanation of the existence of evil, and also a guaranteed universalism. We could distance God from evil and also make him totally responsible - and capable of causing - for our salvation.

The short argument would be: separation from God is necessary for unity with him; this requires free will (for a time), the unavoidable consequence of which is the possibility of evil/sin.

Thoughts?

#2

I think it’s a very good explanation, and actually I think that’s what I already thunk. I probably got it from MacD and Lewis though I haven’t read those passages you quote. Probably I’ve absorbed it naturally from their fiction. I’m not sure how much more dark night I could take though, however much I want to be close to Him. As to whether it makes for a viable theodicy, I suppose that depends on the sort of person you’re answering the PoE question for. Not many folks on the street are going to understand that. I’m pretty sure I don’t understand all of it, but if I read it a dozen or so more times maybe I’ll begin to “get it” a little better. :wink:

#3

I like this very much, Chris, and am very intrigued by this idea. :smiley:

The traditional “free will defense” may rest too heavily on the analogy of lovers and the desire for a man or a woman to have the beloved freely fall in love with them. The idea of a “love potion” or something compelling love is repellent. The idea is that Free-will is necessary for someone to truly love another. That being said, the “beatific vision”, seeing God as he *truly is *would be irresistible and could be construed by some as a “love potion” of sorts. I think it’s obvious that the analogy does not hold-- as how could seeing someone as they truly are be deceptive and coercive? So I think the traditional “free-will defense” may be founded on a shaky analogy.

What you’re presenting is a "free-will 2.0 "defense (in a way). The idea (if I’m understanding you, MacDonald and Lewis correctly) is that in order to have individuals to love and participate in the Divine Being, free-will (of some sort) is necessary and the price for free-will is the possibility of evil.

Personally, I think this is the right track to pursue in regards to the PoE. I suspect that anything that is a “creation” of God’s with freedom entails the possibility of evil—i.e. acting in a “non-God” manner (and that includes non-human creation.)

#4

I’ve been really chewing on these ideas of MacDonald and Lewis. They do seem to suggest a promising and unique kind of theodicy. The argument would run something like this. For there to be unity with God, there must first be a separation from him. An individuality must be formed, a necessary consequence is the possibility (but not necessity?) of sin. But may it be that death is a necessary consequence of existing as an individual and being united to God? I could well imagine death not being necessary, were we never to be “one” with God. But if we really are to “give up ourselves”, does this mean death is a necessary part of the creative processes? One is reminded of the words: “Unless a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it dies it brings forth much fruit.”

Perhaps we could say that everyone must die, so that everyone may be united to God. Is this not, itself, at the very heart of the crucifixion, of the Eloi, Eloi? Could we even suggest as you do that all creation must, in its own way, “die into life” in this way? It seems when understood in a certain way that death itself - as being the dying of the individual to itself in order to be united with its origin - can serve as evidence for a personal God. Is it possible to suggest that even an omnipotent God could not make a thing other than himself, yet like himself, that knows itself in its own way and then is united to himself without a process of separation and death?

I’ve been reading the letters of Thomas Erskine and found the following interesting observation:

"MY DEAR Sir,

My hope for the final salvation of all men rests, in the first place, on the ground in which I know you believe as I do, namely, the desire of God that all men should be righteous ; in the second place, on the assurance that God sees the end from the beginning, and will never bring into existence any spirits which He foresees will finally resist His desire. But further, I may perhaps appear to you to think too lightly of sin; but I cannot help thinking that there may be a teaching through sin, an instruction in righteousness through sin, which perhaps could not be given in any other way. The conviction of the rightness and blessedness of a perfect trust in God may be more efficiently taught through the conviction of the sin and misery of self-trust and self-seeking than through simple spiritual apprehension. May not Peter have learned from his sin in denying his Lord a lesson of self-distrust and trust in God which the words of Jesus could not have given him? God foresaw the whole results which would follow the creation of creatures endowed with free-will, and with these all before Him, He took the step. He saw the enormous amount of sin and misery that would be produced, yet He proceeded in the work. I trust in His trust, in His love, and in His wisdom. . . .

When I think of having actually resisted the righteous will of God to gratify my own selfish will, it appears so monstrous that though God declares that He forgives me, I cannot forgive myself, I cannot look at it without horror; but if I come to feel that through the deep contrition arising from this transgression and the assurance of a love which proceeds in its endeavors to train me in righteousness, un-damped by all this iniquity, my heart has been really brought to trust in God more and to die to self more, then become reconciled to myself ; I can think of my sin, not with less but more hatred of it, yet with less horror of myself. I can look forward to eternity without the idea of the hideous memory making existence painful. I have gained by sin. I have gained righteousness through means of it. If this is possible I don t think God would prevent sin even if He could."

And a similar quote from MacDonald: “Could we ever know good as thou knowest it, save by passing through the sea of sin and the fire of cleansing?” The Voice of Job, Unspoken Sermons.

Interesting to speculate: sin and death being necessary for higher goods; and yet they do not come from God since his intentionality in permitting them is not evil, though man’s intentionality in such a permission is towards self and evil. “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” and that we have been “subject to vanity, not willingly” are two passages which come to mind. Of course, God would be totally responsible for allowing and even setting up the conditions which cause all the evil in the whole universe, but again, “he has himself taken the godlike share of the consequences.”

#5

There is much here worth pondering, Chris. :smiley: I’m not sure if death is evidence of a personal God but understanding God and death in this way, I hope, is at least* consistent* with a personal God. You may well be right that “…even an omnipotent God could not make a thing other than himself, yet like himself, that knows itself in its own way and then is united to himself without a process of separation and death…” For me, the necessity of the process of separation is more definite than the need for death. There may be other reasons for death, I think, and for Christians, death no longer has its “sting” so is hardly death at all.

P.S. I’ll have to read some of Thomas Erskine myself who, as you know, was a big influence on George MacDonald, FD Maurice and many others.

#6

More MacDonald on this topic.

‘More life!’ is the unconscious prayer of all creation, groaning and travailing for the redemption of its lord, the son who is not yet a son. Is not the dumb cry to be read in the faces of some of the animals, in the look of some of the flowers, and in many an aspect of what we call Nature? All things are possible with God, but all things are not easy. It is easy for him to be, for there he has to do with his own perfect will: it is not easy for him to create–that is, after the grand fashion which alone will satisfy his glorious heart and will, the fashion in which he is now creating us. In the very nature of being–that is, God–it must be hard–and divine history shows how hard–to create that which shall be not himself, yet like himself. The problem is, so far to separate from himself that which must yet on him be ever and always and utterly dependent, that it shall have the existence of an individual, and be able to turn and regard him–choose him, and say, ‘I will arise and go to my Father,’ and so develop in itself the highest Divine of which it is capable–the will for the good against the evil–the will to be one with the life whence it has come, and in which it still is–the will to close the round of its procession in its return, so working the perfection of reunion–to shape in its own life the ring of eternity–to live immediately, consciously, and active-willingly from its source, from its own very life–to restore to the beginning the end that comes of that beginning–to be the thing the maker thought of when he willed, ere he began to work its being.

#7

I really need to read through that full essay at some point, maybe tonight.

It’s a very interesting idea. I’m not quite sure about the idea of injustice between the created beings - when humans cause harm to each other, especially serious harm (all the abuse, torture, rape, murder, general hurt), is it justified for God not to intervene in those situations because he needs to allow every individual to gradually become more and more conscious and make choices until they realise the only conscious choice they should make? Maybe it’s justifiable in that hurt is finite and the joy, love and unity will last forever when we all become united with him. If God has to allow the establishment of those four things MacDonald talks about (individuality, consciousness, choice, and conscious choice) then maybe he does have to allow for the fact that each person has to go on their own journey of discovery and may well act in very evil ways towards others until they eventually achieve the highest level of consciousness and choose to turn to their creator.

I do think love, joy and connection is very much enhanced where previously there has been hatred, sadness and separation. I’m thinking of a couple of places in the Bible where Jesus talks about more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than ninety nine who don’t need to and also the end of Luke 7 where he says those who have a bigger debt forgiven will love more (Luke 7:47 "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”) Also the Prodigal Son where there is a party when the son returns.

Even not considering those Biblical examples, just think about those real life stories where people who grew up in poverty-stricken countries with very poor conditions move to the West and are SO grateful for the amazing privileges that we take for granted. Or when as a kid, you lost your parents in a shop and cried your eyes out and when you get reunited with them, you clutch onto them with everything you have.

I might post something more detailed and thought out later but I’m really liking this.

#8

Just read through the whole of MacDonald’s essay. It is amazingly good. I’m going to have to read through it another few times to make sure I’m fully grasping it all.

Not especially related to this theodicy but I really love this - “To those who cannot doubt that thought was first, causally preceding the earliest material show, it is easily plain that death can be the cure for nothing, that the cure for everything must be life.”

#9

MacDonald seems to suggest in certain places - as does Dr. Talbott in Inescapable Love - and Lewis too, that something like experiencing sin, that is, being allowed to sin (I think it incoherent to say God “caused” sin) is somehow necessary for our ultimate happiness. Is that “being allowed to sin” somehow necessarily connected to the idea of “being created as a separate rational being from God”? And does that also imply that, though we fully and freely sin - that is, sin comes from ourselves - it was nevertheless inevitable? St. Paul as well sounds this way on occasion.

-Sin entering in so that grace may abound

  • Christ being slain before the foundation of the world (his death was predestined by the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” and “whatever his hand and counsel had determined would be done”)
  • in many places in the New Testament wickedness is allowed so that the scripture will be fulfilled
  • creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but so that it could be set free from bondage and come to enjoy the freedom of liberation in God
  • the very reconciliation of the world was planned before the creation of the universe, according to Paul’s “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
  • For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God
  • Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

All these “so that’s” seem to suggest that the allowance of sin was necessary to achieve the perfect reconciliation and perfection of the world. If we imagine “the law” in the quotes from St. Paul above to be “living to self”, can we picture a theodicy as described by Lewis and MacDonald? In other words, can we understand St. Paul’s words to mean something like “it was necessary that we should live to self, and thus, if we chose, sin (that is we must be free to sin or be able to sin) in order that we may deny ourselves and cling to God and have him, rather than self, as the object of our love”? Is sin or its possibility somehow necessary for us coming into self-consciousness?

#10

You guys have really piqued my interest! :smiley:

I’ll have to read (or perhaps reread) that essay again. :wink: