Piper & Keller love Lewis but say George MacDonald non-Xtian

[corpselight]

I’m talking about important particular details we all agree on – or all three trinitarian groups agree on anyway, but even non-trinitarians Christians agree with a lot of those details (and even some non-Christian theists!) even though categorically they’re talking about a different kind of supernaturalistic theism and so a somewhat different kind of God. But still not an entirely and completely different kind of God.

How does pointing out important details of similarity somehow become a “level of abstraction”??

Is that how the various non-trinitarians on the site would like me to treat them? – the way Piper and Keller are treating Christian universalists? Because the details of difference between me and any non-trinitarian theist are significantly more numerous than the details of difference between me and Piper (or Lewis for that matter).

I myself have on occasion essentially quoted MacDonald on comparing points of particularly Calv doctrine (where Arms and Kaths agree in disagreeing about those) as “Moloch worship”, even here on this site within the past few months. I’m trying to make a very limited point, though, when I say such things. It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate for me to charge Piper and Keller with actually worshiping Moloch, something that really is a completely different kind of god than orthodox trinitarian supernaturalistic theism.

(On the contrary, I rely on Calvs really being dedicated to being ortho-trin theists and not some other kind of theist, when disputing with them. )

I think, in short, that it’s important (including but not restricted to my own moral health) to treat Calvinists the way I would want them to treat me. I resent them unfairly and inaccurately tarring me with various brushes (and then setting that tar on fire ), so I had better make sure I’m not doing to them what I recognize being wrong when they do it to me. Do they discount my orthodox trinitarian theism so that they can pretend I worship a completely different god? I had better not do the same to them. Would I want them to be merciful to me if I speak in well-intentioned error? Then I should be merciful to them.

And, on the same principle, I’m not going to go around saying that various non-trinitarian Christians on this site (or anywhere else) are worshiping a completely different deity, much less saying so in order to hold that against them morally or whatever.

I’m supposed to be doing better than Piper&Keller&Co. And that’s what I’m trying to do, against my own reactive feelings when they act unfairly (by accident I hope) to MacD and similar Christian universalists.

That being said, I can understand people wanting to let off steam against them, so I’m not complaining about that (in this thread anyway). I’m only explaining why I’m restricting my steam.

fairly Girardian of you there, Jason…you’re doing your best to avoid scapegoating them the way they scapegoat us
i can understand this, but it’s very difficult to argue with Pharisees, which is why i think Christ and John the Baptist just called them out on their flagrant hypocrisies instead.

[edited to add]:
these hypocrisies, as per Sobornost’s concerns, are not just academic points of view, but belief systems that cause REAL pain, stress and anxiety to many. It’s important to remember that and not accidentally neglect the feelings of people that are perhaps more vulnerable than these “teachers” believe themselves to be, in their arrogance.

we may know that the “teachers” are FAR more vulnerable in terms of God’s judgement (there are lovely strong warnings about this), but we have to protect those who are seeking.

I believe that’s what’s going on here…finding common points so we can make friends of our enemies (by their choice not ours), is all well and good, so long as we protect those who are victims of their lies. and i do say that their “message” is a lie.

i may not believe they have a different God (though i love GMD’s wording, and if i interpret his meaning as turning with loathing from Edwards’ definition of God, i think we can come back to the points in common), but i can say their point of view is vile. it produces bad fruit. it is unBiblical, it is mean-spirited, it is proud, it is legalistic (in practice if not in theological starting point), it ironically lacks even a whiff of grace or love. thankfully, many Calvs, despite their belief system, do better than that in their real lives, and i do well to remember that. even Piper has spoken out against health/wealth gospel.

[Sobornost]

Jason I wasn’t being rude to you - I’m just saying that the issue is about torture, and of course genocide - the two most revolting things known to human begins raised up into the divine mystery of sovereignty. And its’ OK to say that GMD was indulging in emotional hyperbole - but I don’t think he was - and it does no do justice to GMD to say that he was. It’s hard to love in all directions - but I don’t think he was, I don’t think we should diminish

I was thinking for example - if I had some Christians round for dinner and they put forward the view that God was going to raise the six million (perhaps a lot more) Jews killed in the holocaust what is the most loving thing for me to do?

And the idea that God hates people if notional is often anodyne but if acted upon is wicked - an it’s OK to point that out even if it gives offence. I knew nothing of John Piper before joining this site. I saw a lot of him the other week getting acquainted with some of his videos - but the one that made me feel very sick ( and I don’t think it was unloving of me to feel sick - people’s Unitarian beliefs do not make me sick in this way even though I am a Trinitarian) was the one in which he and some of his colleagues burst out laughing at a joke about the murder of Michael Servetus.

[Sherman]

I find it helpful to be careful to address the doctrine or concept and not the person. In my opinion the doctrine of infernalism is a doctrine of demons that either fills people with fear or causes people to harden their hearts against others. But though someone believes in infernalism, if they have put their faith in Jesus and follow him the best they know how, then I claim them as family, brothers and sisters in Christ.

It reminds me of when in the past my brother was angry with my father for some percieved offence. He is our father, but at that time we saw him differently. Now my brother’s relationship with our father has been restored and we understand him from a similar perspective. In like manner, though Piper and Keller (mis)understand Our Father’s character and plan to be different from my (mis)understanding of God’s character and plan, they are still my brothers.

Of course, I also believe that scripture affirms that we are all children of God, all humanity. This is signified, I believe, in the phrase “created in the image of God”. So when I pray “Our Father”, I see all as being my family and seek to emotionally and rationally relate to each person as family - whether they see me that way or not.

So, as I’ve thought more on this, not only am I saddened by Keller’s and Piper’s attitude and beliefs concerning GMD, I’m also saddened by GMD’s statement denouncing Edward’s “god”. I think it was a poor choice of words, inflaming division in Our Family. How much better it would have been if he would’ve affirmed Edwards as a brother, and respectfully disagreed with his (mis)understanding of Our Father.

My dad was terribly grieved by my brother’s misunderstanding of his actions, as was my brother terribly grieved by my father’s misunderstanding of him. Praise be to God Our Father though who helped them work out their differences and brought reconciliation.

Coming to believe in UR has had a tremendous positive effect in my life, but coming to believe in the universality of the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of humanity has had possibly even had a greater effect on me, maybe. Both “revelations” help me to love God more (whom I can’t see) and love even more my neighbor (whom I can see). “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

[corpselight]

I find it helpful to be careful to address the doctrine or concept and not the person. In my opinion the doctrine of infernalism is a doctrine of demons that either fills people with fear or causes people to harden their hearts against others. But though someone believes in infernalism, if they have put their faith in Jesus and follow him the best they know how, then I claim them as family, brothers and sisters in Christ.

It reminds me of when in the past my brother would be angry with my father for some percieved offence. He is our father, but at that time we saw him differently. Now my brother’s relationship with our father has been restored and we understand him from a similar perspective. In like manner, though Piper and Keller (mis)understand Our Father’s character and plan to be different from my (mis)understanding of God’s character and plan, they are still my brothers.

Of course, I also believe that scripture affirms that we are all children of God, all humanity. This is signified, I believe, in the phrase “created in the image of God”. So when I pray “Our Father”, I see all as being my family and seek to emotionally and rationally relate to each person as family - whether they see me that way or not.

So, as I’ve thought more on this, not only am I saddened by Keller’s and Piper’s attitude and beliefs concerning GMD, I’m also saddened by GMD’s statement denouncing Edward’s “god”. I think it was a poor choice of words, inflaming division in Our Family. How much better it would have been if he would’ve affirmed Edwards as a brother, and respectfully disagreed with his (mis)understanding of Our Father.

My dad was terribly grieved by my brother’s misunderstanding of his actions, as was my brother terribly grieved by my father’s misunderstanding of him. Praise be to God Our Father though who helped them work out their differences and brought reconciliation.

Coming to believe in UR has had a tremendous positive effect in my life, but coming to believe in the universality of the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of humanity has had possibly even had a greater effect on me, maybe. Both “revelations” help me to love God more (whom I can’t see) and love even more my neighbor (whom I can see). “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

this is excellent, and very well put…and though a part of me loves GMD’s emotive language, i have to concede you are correct.

my one issue here is not so much calling them brothers, it’s the fact that placing themselves in authority means their musings, from their point of view, affects many. this means the harm they can do with their smug, casual talk is multiplied. while we must long for the day when we shall be reconciled…my misunderstands of Father sorted out just as much as Piper and Keller’s…we have to protect the vulnerable now. and that sometimes means taking very strong stances.

this strong stance was, i believe, part of why GMD spoke as he did of Edwards. He had real past history of his own there, and he spoke from hurt and a longing to address the evils of that man’s theology, so as to spread the real truth about God.
this is somewhat like the Psalmist saying “happy is he who dashes a Babylonian baby against the rocks”…divisive, violent, horrible…but human, and speaking from genuine injury. there is some room for this, i believe…though we must not continue in hate, and must learn to forgive and be reconciled, especially as those who have learned the truth of reconciliation.

but still, when there is authority being taken to spread a hateful view of our Father…love our brother that speaks the lie we must, but we must strongly denounce the lie.

[Sobornost]

Of course, I also believe that scripture affirms that we are all children of God, all humanity. This is signified, I believe, in the phrase “created in the image of God”. So when I pray “Our Father”, I see all as being my family and seek to emotionally and rationally relate to each person as family - whether they see me that way or not.

That’s very well put Sherman. I agree with you that it would have been better if GMD had stated his case against Jonathan Edwards differently. But as James says - it all depends on your experience and your journey how you state things.

[Sobornost]

Hi Sherman – I like your ‘right about some things wrong about others’ horizon of humility that you apply to yourself and to Calvinists (and by extension to anybody and everybody). Yes I think we should all apply this to ourselves. But I reckon you are very sure that you are right that God is love, that God loves all of his children, and that God certainly does not create most of mankind to hate them. I always think of those young in the faith of Christian Universalism these days when posting about subjects like this I guess. We at lest need to say this loud and clear.

[Sherman]

this is excellent, and very well put…and though a part of me loves GMD’s emotive language, i have to concede you are correct.

Thanks bro.

my one issue here is not so much calling them brothers, it’s the fact that placing themselves in authority means their musings, from their point of view, affects many. this means the harm they can do with their smug, casual talk is multiplied. while we must long for the day when we shall be reconciled…my misunderstands of Father sorted out just as much as Piper and Keller’s…we have to protect the vulnerable now. and that sometimes means taking very strong stances.

this strong stance was, i believe, part of why GMD spoke as he did of Edwards. He had real past history of his own there, and he spoke from hurt and a longing to address the evils of that man’s theology, so as to spread the real truth about God.
this is somewhat like the Psalmist saying “happy is he who dashes a Babylonian baby against the rocks”…divisive, violent, horrible…but human, and speaking from genuine injury. there is some room for this, i believe…though we must not continue in hate, and must learn to forgive and be reconciled, especially as those who have learned the truth of reconciliation.

but still, when there is authority being taken to spread a hateful view of our Father…love our brother that speaks the lie we must, but we must strongly denounce the lie.

You’ve heard,“Hurting people, hurt people.” I find that to be true having experienced it myself. And though we’ve been delievered from the bondage of a lie, the pain of the bondage often still remains. And when one makes a major theological change, the ones still in the previous tradition often lash out of their fear and hurt at you leaving the fold, hurting you more. And it is tough to not speak out of one’s hurt, but what flows out of hurt rarely diminishes one’s pain and usually only causes pain to others. Once healed though by grace and forgiveness, we can speak in grace and forgiveness.

“Speaking the truth in love” is challenging. “Speaking the truth from hurt” is very easy. The one brings life, healing, restoration, reconciliation; the other compounds the hurt.

Working through this is helping me to better speak the truth in love. Saying something along the lines of “I think he misunderstands Our Father and scripture…” would much better communicate our differences than “I don’t believe in your god” kinda statement. There is wisdom in being “slow to speak and slow to anger”, I think.

Words are powerful. In the right conditions, a single spark can cause a forest-fire, burning down many homes and ruining families. Controlled burning can be very helpful, but the key is control, and even then such fires are very dangerous.

[Sherman]

Hi Sherman – I like your ‘right about some things wrong about others’ horizon of humility that you apply to yourself and to Calvinists (and by extension to anybody and everybody). Yes I think we should all apply this to ourselves. But I reckon you are very sure that you are right that God is love, that God loves all of his children, and that God certainly does not create most of mankind to hate them. I always think of those young in the faith of Christian Universalism these days when posting about subjects like this I guess. We at lest need to say this loud and clear.

Yep, I believe that God is love with every fiber of my being, and do not shy away from proclaiming my faith in Jesus savior of all to save everyone. I’m learning though that one catches a lot more flies with honey than viniger. For example, I’m writing a book on this for my adult children, why I’ve come to believe UR. I was thinking of titling it “No Hell? Hell Yes!” but am thinking now of simply titling it “Every Knee Shall Bow”, both having a subtitle of “A Case for Biblical Evangelical Christian Universalism”. The first is provocative and I catching, but difficult for many to evey consider. The second is scriptural and if all the person does is look at the cover, I hope to plant a seed in their minds linking that verse (scripture and several songs/hymns) with UR.

I too also hope to teach those young in the faith how to communicate our faith in grace and humility. I believe we should love the hell out of everyone! Speaking the truth in love, not from hurt. Though this assumes that we first be healed.

[JasonPratt]

Just so we know what we’re supposed to be praising or being bothered about, this is what MacD said at the end of that sermon “Justice”:

From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s ***[size=150]portrait of God[/size]***, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing.

MacD can and does speak of a man’s notion of God being itself a false god (lowercase g) (as in the sermon on “Self-Denial”), or about the man’s self being a false god, but he’s talking about Edwards’ portrait of the true God Whom Edwards and MacD both believe in.

Where MacD is much stronger is in the Moloch statement from the sermon on “Righteousness”, which I’ll quote for accuracy:

Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice.

Even here though MacD is referring to justice as something which requires God to do something, “God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it” – which of course he rejects, not only because such people are speaking of something more like Moloch than justice, but because God cannot be required to do something by “justice”. (A point most Calvinists would agree on over-against Arminian ways of phrasing God’s justice.) His criticism would make no sense if he was not appealing to a shared belief and understanding of God Most High as ground for exposing the incoherence of the usual type of penal sub atonement.

[Sobornost]

Hi Jason -

I really wasn’t being sarcastic about your excellent post earlier. I agreed with all you said - it’s just that I was a bit worried by ‘emotional hyperbole’ as well as Alex’s ‘disclaimers’ and thought it best that you hollered me out than that one of them real hard anti-Calvinists came on line . What GMD says about JE’s portrait of God? I guess this covers everything including ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’ ?

Agreed we have to state our case against TULIP Calvinism by arguing from shared assumptions
You do that brilliantly.

Agreed with Sherman that we need to love the hell of of people too.

The only point I’d make is that ’ love casts out fear’ and this is a process for Universalists. We are all at different stages. (It was a hard couple of hours the other Friday sitting through JP videos to try and understand another post here )

love

Dick

[Sherman]

Thanks Jason for clearing that quote up for me. I’m only now beginning to read GMD’s material. And Dick I certainly appreciate your passion to see people come into the freedom of having faith in Jesus to save all. And I agree, it is hard to listen for any length of time to those who so confidently misrepresent, speak evil of the One we love. Some hearts are so callused they don’t even begin to emotionally connect with those they’ve damned to hell. very sad. When I think along these lines I’m reminded of Augustines denumciation of UR in noting that many “tender hearts” believed it. I was thinking the other day that something along those lines would be a good title for a book on Systematic Theology from a UR perspective, something like “Broken-heart Theology, A Systematic Theology Rooted in the Compassion of God.” Just thinkin.

[Sobornost]

What a wonderful title - I’d buy it

[Sobornost]

Just a few brief thoughts – while I don’t like the idea of ‘common grace’ and I don’t think there is any biblical warrant for it I can see that it does have its blessings. A Calvinist who believes in ‘common grace’ can be open to non-Calvinists; and there is always hope that belief in a sort of provisional dignity for the reprobate can lead to a realisation of the eschatological dignity of all in UR. So as a provisional teaching I’m all for it. It has certainly enabled JP to be open to C.S. Lewis and actually enjoy the fantasies of George MacDonald. A more extreme Calvinist – and there are plenty of more extreme Calvinists – would see Lewis as an agent of Satan for any number of reasons (like viewing PSA as optional, having a love for classical/pagan culture, being soft on Catholicism etc). So JP is in some sense an irenic figure.

Thanks Sherman about passion – passion has its place but I can overdo it. My passion s not so much a fury against partial pictures of God, but rather how partial pictures of God that mix up love and hate can lead people to act. The whole issue of offence is tricky – GMD scandalised JP because of his words about JE; JP has scandalised some of us by calling GMD a non-believer… Och well, it’s a tricky one.

I wish that the Reformed tradition had not taken John Calvin so much to heart as its leader. Martin Bucer, for example, also taught Reformed Christianity – but he was far more irenic. He had Hans Denck – the proto universalist – expelled from Strasbourg for suspected Unitarianism and Origenism. But he only had him expelled and he was generous in his assessment of Denck’s sincerity and nobility of soul. But Martin Bucer wrote in a convoluted and inaccessible way while Calvin was clear and exact in logic. Again - och well…
Love to all (and I mean it)

Dick

P.S. And Jonathan Edwards did write at least one beautiful essay - IMHO - the one about his realisation of nature as a theophany of God’s majesty. And he was basically a kind man and a loving husband who treated the Native American justly.

[Caleb_Fogg]

Irony of the day: In the first video, around the9:58 mark, Keller uses a quote to make a point, from Jacques Ellul, who is a universalist!!!

[Sobornost]

I was just thinking that one of the really subversive things that GMD did was to baptise imaginations. This strong sense of the holy and loving goodness of the Fatherhood of God that suffuses both his apologetics and his fiction is irresistible. I understand that it did much to heal and comfort the broken hearts and minds of many raised in the stern Scottish traditions of Calvinism. Also the children in his novels and stories are capable of being naughty but they are never evil to the marrow. Again this subverts a tradition of Calvinist evangelical children’s books in which children are indeed evil and are severely and fearfully punished and in holy songs for children in which, for example, a naughty child dies and is translated immediately to the final judgment where anxious parents plead with the judge – but the judge will not listen.

GMD’s heart certainly informs Lewis’ imagination. The children protagonists of the Narnia Chronicles – who are the focus of our human sympathies – are not depraved, and even the very naughty ones like Edmund and Eustace are redeemed and forgiven in the end (and reconciled to the other children). The Last Battle may have an attenuated ECT outcome – with those animals who have rejected Aslan having their speech taken away – but we have not been engaged with these animals as if they are real. And of course the Lion the witch and the Wardrobe gives a moving portrayal of the Ransom theory of atonement and Aslan is certainly sovereign in majesty but he is very much all Father and all goodness (Aslan is also derived from another imaginative source, the Platonic form of essence of Lion that crops up in The Place of the Lion by the Christian hermeticist Charles Williams).

I know that Gary Dorian in his book ‘The Word as True Myth’ credits Lewis’ books with changing the culture of American evangelicalism from a forensic Calvinism to a more relational and open form of Christianity. And if this is true – Lewis has simply passed on the baptism of imagination he received from GMD.

P.S. I guess Susan gets a raw deal in the Narnia Chronicles - and her sin seems to be that she’s become an adolescent (whatever the wider symbolic significance of her exclusion may be). Oh well - even generous imaginations have limits!!!

[Alex_Smith]

I was a bit worried by … Alex’s ‘disclaimers’

Sorry, I don’t think I articulated what I meant very well I’ll try to clarify…

We can freely quote C.S. Lewis in discussions with non-EUs without having to worry about a stack of misunderstandings from doing so. However if we quote MacDonald in the same discussions, it might completely sidetrack the conversation. Sometimes that’s fine, however if you were in live radio/TV debate, you might not have time, & people might end up not hearing your main point because they got distracted by the fact you quoted a “non-Christian”

Similarly if you only had 5 minutes to explain EU to Keller, it would be prudent to avoid quoting MacDonald - not because MacDonald wasn’t a brilliant man worth quoting but because pragmatically sometimes we have to pick our battles. (If you had a day with Keller, then it may well be worth explaining to him why MacDonald was not only a Christian but one with many amazing insights!)

[Alex_Smith]

Irony of the day: In the first video, around the9:58 mark, Keller uses a quote to make a point, from Jacques Ellul, who is a universalist!!!

Sobornost & corpselight I hear what you are saying about being sensitive to those who have been deeply hurt by Calvinism - it’s not easy

Likewise it’s extra difficult to be restrained when we see the influence leaders, like Keller & Piper, are having on young Christians - even this brief dismissal of MacDonald really could result in thousands of Christians never ever reading MacDonald

Thanks Sherman & Jason for your comments too.

Thanks everyone for trying to be restrained, I really appreciate it, particularly as I have Calvinist friends reading along.

[Paidion]

this strong stance was, i believe, part of why GMD spoke as he did of Edwards. He had real past history of his own there, and he spoke from hurt and a longing to address the evils of that man’s theology, so as to spread the real truth about God.
this is somewhat like the Psalmist saying “happy is he who dashes a Babylonian baby against the rocks”…divisive, violent, horrible…but human, and speaking from genuine injury. there is some room for this, i believe…though we must not continue in hate, and must learn to forgive and be reconciled, especially as those who have learned the truth of reconciliation.

I’m not sure whether or not you are saying that GMD spoke against Edwards as a person and that he “continued in hate” of the man.
Whatever the case, it is clear from the GMD quote that it is not Edwards that he loathed, but his portrait of God. I feel the same way.

From all copies of Jonathan Edwards‘ portrait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing.

[SLJ]

Wow, that was interesting. I was a little surprised that Keller would outright say that MacDonald was not a Christian.

I was also a little surprised that Piper would reject MacDonald outright though knowing that Lewis said he never wrote anything without quoting MacDonald. Knowing this, how can he rationally hold Lewis in high esteem while rejecting MacDonald?

Alex, I don’t know that there is any use in helping people to understand MacDonald, but here’s a shot …

In addition to the instance mentioned and the clarification that it is the portrait of God that MacDonald repudiates, there are a couple of other places where MacDonald mentions Edwards, and they might shed a little more light on MacDonald’s perspective …

From the novel Paul Faber, describing an older pastor’s journey toward truth:

He grew humble before the Master, and the Master began to lord it lovingly over him. He sought His presence, and found Him; began to think less of books and rabbis, yea even, for the time, of Paul and Apollos and Cephas, and to pore and ponder over the living tale of the New Covenant; began to feel that the Lord meant what He said, and that His apostles also meant what He said; forgot Calvin a good deal, outgrew the influences of Jonathan Edwards, and began to understand Jesus Christ.

Calvinists will likely be offended by MacDonald’s expression here that as one begins to understand Christ, Edwards’ influence can be “outgrown” (as if it is an immature view) and Calvin “forgotten.” But I think there we see how it was relationship with God that MacDonald really valued – rather than theology and doctrines of men. He believed that seeking to know and understand and obey Jesus directly was the essence of Christianity, not to put our faith in the understanding of other men.

From the novel Robert Falconer, speaking of Robert’s Calvinist grandmother:

When she said that God was light, instead of concluding therefrom that He could not do the deeds of darkness, she was driven, from a faith in the teaching of Jonathan Edwards as implicit as that of ‘any lay papist of Loretto,’ to doubt whether the deeds of darkness were not after all deeds of light, or at least to conclude that their character depended not on their own nature, but on who did them.

Again, Calvinists will be offended by this. Here we see MacDonald’s belief that faith in man’s teaching (rather than faith in God Himself) can influence people to believe that darkness or evil is actually good. The theological construct teaches that God does certain things, so they conclude that those things must be good – instead of recognising that, since those things are not good, something must be wrong with the theology.

But, I think both Piper and Keller would at least agree to some extent with the principles that MacDonald is working from:

1. That we should first have our faith in Christ and be in real relationship with God, not relying on the teachings of men.
   And …
2. That relying on the teachings of men can lead us into false and destructive beliefs.

They might call MacDonald unChristian, but however strongly MacDonald repudiated Jonathan Edwards’ portrait of God (the God who abhors you and dangles you over the pit of hell like a loathsome insect), I think MacDonald would not have called their Christianity into question. MacDonald’s measure of Christianity was not tied to the understanding of certain doctrinal theories, but to the practice of following Christ.

I have to add, since they hold Lewis in such high respect, I think they would do well to learn from his “generosity” – which might be better called “humility.”

Sonia

[Sobornost]

Dear Sonia –

That’s a really excellent and informative post and the quotations from the novels of GMD are especially helpful. Thank you so much. I also agree that we can all learn from Lewis’ humility. It is quite astonishing that Jack Lewis has become such a cult figure. When any of us say we ‘love’ such a complex and multi faceted writer and human being as Jack Lewis – I think we often mean that we love the bits of the person that seem to reflect back our own best image to us (which may contain bits of idolatry actually). Jack Lewis did the same with George Macdonald I guess.

And I hope when all of us meet in heaven – and I hope Jack Lewis will talk to me, and that GMD will kiss and be friends with him (no hard feelings over ‘The Great Divorce’ boys ) – and that I will love the real Jack Lewis and he will love the real me (and forgive me for lacking his enormous talents and for any ways in which I misrepresent when I say – ‘and I too love the real Jack Lewis!!! And since I too love the real Jack Lewis and therefore can speak for him personally – but less of the ‘C.S’. purrrlease everybody – that is the publisher’s convention of the times speaking, and it makes him sound too posh in a well scrubbed and ‘best bib and truckers’ way; when actually he was a bit of a ramshackle mess on the quiet. I am a bit of a mess – therefore I love Jack Lewis )

Blessings

P.S. And I agree with you there Paidion – GMD is appalled by a very dominant aspect of JE’s portrait of God; he doesn’t hate JE. That’s allowed in my book. I feel the same way too. But as for how to talk about this stuff getting the right balance given that some of us have Calvinists friends are reading this thread, others are concerned abet members of our more intimate family damaged by extreme Calvinism who are reading this thread, and all of us want to be loving without diluting or principles, (and a host of other issues). Well I think we are only in the early stages of thinking this one through, and it will take time, patience and listening from all. That’s what I think anyway.