In the “We all deserve Hell”? thread, Tom Talbott said:
After reading this brief summary, I immediately thought of our discussion about George MacDonald’s short story,“The Gray Wolf” (only 4 PDF pages !) which had confused me for ages and we discussed here, with, I think some new understanding.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=4868 With Dr Talbott’s philosophy in mind, I thought it might be worth revisiting the tale…
Here’s a link to a PDF of the story…boblyman.net/englt392/texts/GrayWolf.pdf There are many meanings to draw from the story, not the least of which is the hidden redemptive work of God in our lives. But the story being about a young woman werewolf isolated on a remote Scottish isle and ministered to by an “interesting” old woman, bears striking parallels to the process Dr Talbott sees God using to bring all into fellowship with him if need be. (From the SEP entry above)
And…
Take a look at the article and the story (and our discussion thread if the symbology is too obscure ) and let me know what you think. I’ll hold my comments for now…
Oh, and I wanted to post some pictures of eagles I saw out with the dogs today by the river. Two juvenile bald eagles and an adult. Couldn’t believe how close I got to them! I was right at the base of the trees where they were perched when taking these pictures after they flew in.
Yes, it was a real treat, Dave!
I really wasn’t excited about going today (slushy snow and old ice to negotiate) and this was right at the turn-around point. If I’d cut the walk short I would have missed them. I think there are Messages in experiences like this (in Nature) though sometimes it’s like trying to understand what a certain piece of music means…
Edit: After returning home I thought of this which I’d recently read… “And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.”
It’s a strange story and now with what we’ve learned from the previous discussion, it does seem a bit different. I’m hoping we can get get some of the more philosophically minded folks here to jump in and see if this story does indeed seem to be a portrayal of the process Dr Talbott is talking about in regards to God’s treatment of the ignorant, self-deceived and rebellious “sinners” in order to teach, un-deceive and remove any motive for rebellion and reconcile them with God. I think that often a fictional portrayal or perhaps a parable may more readily convey a theological or philosophical idea and I think that was George MacDonald’s intent here… Unfortunately. this story (as we learned from the comments at the other website where it was discussed ) is not something easily understood, at least in the 21st century. As Dr Talbott only gave us a “brief summary” of the philosophical idea he is going to explain further in the second edition of “The Inescapable Love of God”, I think there’s plenty of leeway here to speculate about that idea and discuss in what ways this story fits that idea and in what ways it doesn’t.
I read the story. It was certainly interesting. I’m not sure if there is enough in it to really say too much regarding it’s main point. I do see elements of sadness and a sort of “curse” or “burden” being born by the woman. But redemption? I am not sure. Does she make any redemptive acts? She’s certainly torn between her two selves - the wolf self and the woman self. But I’m not sure there is enough to say she’s making any positive movement toward good. Unless of course you think that in the end when she runs ahead of the student she is leading him off the island.
As far as Talbott’s philosophy. I have long since thought - because I’ve experienced it in my life - that certain experiences can bring one to a point of intellectual certainty which compels the will to act such and such a way. Does this interfere with freedom? In some ways yes and in other ways no. The conditions which make such “outer darkness” moments possible are often already the result of free choices one’s made. In that sense, the outer darkness - and the transformation that occurs afterward - exist because of contingent and free acts (of the doer or perhaps, even, of another being.) But at the same time I’m not sure it’s enough to say that these experiences alone - these dark nights of the soul which shatter our illusions and compel our wills - are enough. That is, I’m not sure our going through them is all that God wants. Surely he also wants us to make good decisions and realize our mistakes and be repentant without the outer darkness? There’s a letter in Screwtape which goes something like: God at points makes obedience sweet and irresistible, but that’s not the end he’s shooting for, only a means by which true obedience (and perfection?) is attained. In other words, I do believe there are moments when we are compelled through a sort of inescapable intellectual conviction of the condition we are in - whether that’s sin, helplessness, addiction, etc. And that in these moments, our wills are not really “free” (though it’s due to acts of our free wills that we are in these moments in the first place.) One could say these moments are the far-off consequences of free acts and still maintain they’re connected to freedom of the will. But, at the same time, I still think there are other experiences necessary for our perfection: in those moments when our wills are not compelled, choosing the good by sheer obedience and freedom. There are other spiritual stairs we must climb, in other words.
Excellent points, Chris! Certainly, I agree that Father requires something of us – some cooperation, at least at some point, is going to be necessary, and is probably going to be hard. At least from my point of view, as someone who leans Arminian, I see a long road ahead for the wolf-girl in this story. There’s a lot of symbolism here, though, and not all of it is readily accessible to us creatures of the twenty-first century. If you have time, I think you’d enjoy reading through the previous thread on this story that Steve linked earlier.
Like I said in the previous thread (or I think I said – if I remember right, which I don’t always), I think it showed some sign of progress on the girl’s part that she led the student to her mother’s house and resisted the instinct of her beast nature to consume him. She could have done it, there in the cave, with him all unsuspecting. I believe it was Steve who pointed out that she appeared to have been subsisting on small animals whose skeletons the student found at the entrance to the cave.
Now that I think about this a little more, isn’t this kind of what we do when we sin? We steal life from one another. I mean this metaphorically – I’m not a vegetarian or anything – but we live on one another’s lives just as the girl seeks to live from the natural lives of the small animals around her on the island. But she won’t eat the fish. Jesus is identified with the fish. The icthus symbol was an icon of the early church, symbolic of Jesus. Fish also symbolize resurrection. The sea meant death to the mostly non-seafaring Israelites, yet fish miraculously lived in the dark, dangerous waters and were pulled alive from within the womb of death – to sustain the life of the people. The wolf girl wants to live off the life of the student, but she restricts herself to the small animals of the island – yet the idea of eating the fish disgusts her.
Though she refuses the fish, she does at least taste the whiskey (water of life) that her mother has sweetened and possibly mingled with spice, to make a toddy.
But I’ve said enough here . . . it’s someone else’s turn.
I agree He would like us to have our illusions shattered, to understand and seek good, and follow Him without having to experience all the consequences of our bad choices—including potentially “the outer darkness”. I think, however, that there are some who will need to experience that in order to repent, stop the downward spiral into “beastliness” and then start to grow into Christlike-ness.
In the story, the wolf-girl is not living " without even an implicit experience of the divine nature" at this point (the ultimate in “outer darkness” experience as Dr Talbott points out). Perhaps she was before or perhaps she didn’t need medicine that strong as she does experience the companionship and ministrations of “the old woman”. The cave where the wolf-girl goes is, however, an outer darkness-type place.
Compare that to this….
I agree, Cindy, as you said on the other thread, the “Wolf-Girl”* is* making progress. She refrained from attacking the student the second time and does seem to bemoan her isolation and the fact that the student had to leave and also may have confined taking her blood-thirstiness out on small animals. (Though it may also be that, in her isolation or “quarantine”, only small animals are available to her.) She also did take a sip of the “Water of Life” though she continues to be disgusted by the fish the old woman offers.
Two things to point out in comparing this story to the “outer darkness” treatment Dr Talbott proposes. First, the “Old Woman” a type of the Holy Spirit most likely, has kept the wolf-girl from being a danger to others. In experiencing the consequences of our bad choices post-mortem, God cannot allow others to be hurt. (I’ll set aside the question of the girl killing and eating small animals.)
Second, the old woman says, “But you’ll take a dram and a bit of fish. It’s all I’ve got.” God can only give us *good *things. He’s not going to give us unwholesome things. We may not accept these “good things”, however, until our illusions are shattered by experiencing the consequences of our choices, of our “freedom”…
One last comment about this idea of God allowing us to experience the consequences of our freedom. I really like this idea as method God uses to bring us to him. This seems to be what God does for us in this life. It appears to be something he values, so why shouldn’t post-mortem education be similar as opposed to violating our freedom in some fashion, perhaps with a “beatific vision” type experience?
Interesting topic, Steve. GMac’s story is deceptive in its apparent simplicity, isn’t it? If your understanding of the story’s hidden meaning is correct - and I’m inclined to agree that it is - it is surely not accidental that the young girl is a werewolf.
Picking up on Chris’s point about a curse, lycanthropy has traditionally been viewed as a curse from which the lycanthrope must be set free, often by their own death. You don’t need me to point out the symbolism there. Plus of course you’ve got the obvious literal and symbolic dichotomies of good/bad, wolf/human and - tellingly - wolf/lamb (the girl’s mother calls her “my lamb” at one point).
I think you’re bang on about the mother, who is clearly an avatar for the Father, having nothing else to give her child except the “good gift” of fish. The daughter, as yet unfit to partake of that good gift - because she continues to cling to her animal nature, as unrepentant sinners do - has to make do with the raw flesh of some small animal (of which the single drop of blood on her skin is the tell-tale trace).
I’m intrigued by the girl’s line on meeting the student (my emphasis), “My mother will give you shelter, but that is all she has to offer.” This is quickly proven incorrect, as the mother also offers the student food. So what does it mean?
Very true, and one could take it to mean “Adam’s curse” or original sin, however, I don’t think I’d take it that far. Certainly MacDonald believed we all are imperfect, perhaps with an inherited “fallenness”, but I don’t see him endorsing an inherited sinful nature per Augustine. He does make a point about the inner “beast” in several stories, but it seems it is what men do and think that makes them beasts, not a curse imposed upon them. Here is the Grandmother/Princess in “The Princess and Curdie”:
We this in mind, I think MacDonald’s werewolf is such because of her own actions and thoughts and not “cursed”. That being said, she is in a sense “bound” and trapped by her sins and what she has become, so perhaps you could say she has “cursed” herself.
Great point and one I hadn’t noticed! This really expands the role of the old woman, making her a shepherd in a sense (the Good Shepherd?) and the wolf-girl as, perhaps, a “lost sheep” the Good Shepherd set out to find and bring back to the fold…with the purgatorial process part of the journey back.
Yes, that’s quite interesting. Because at this point the wolf-girl despises the holy and wholesome food and drink the old woman has, does she consider it “nothing”? Is MacDonald making a point about those deeply immersed in their sin not being able to see or acknowledge the good things God has to offer-- a spiritual blindness that follows from their condition?
I was right at the base of the trees where they were perched when taking these pictures after they flew in.
