First, I think that many Christians commit the same fallacy when trying to understand God that many people prior to the Copernican Revolution had about the universe. That is, mistook what they saw for reality based on their perception as the center of the universe rather than looking at it from the universal. So, what do I really mean?
I think we tend to look at all the characteristics of God and paint them in our minds as different "forms" or "ways" in which God displays Himself. This is a fallacy. I think it is much more true to say that, just as the stars only appear to circle around us because we are really ourselves moving, It is not God who changes. God never changes, only our perception of Him as we move through "space."
Second thought: George MacDonald had this view that "it is better to do what evil you are capable of doing if that is more likely to jolt you into goodness, rather than simply thinking of that evil and letting it simmer and grow."
Now, this on the surface seems understandable. Namely, that it is better not to harbour evil and never understand how dangerous it is...but the idea that you can sort of jolt yourself back by commiting the actual evil you are capable of is wrong on the basest level.
Point First: The there is seemingly no end to the evil that we as humans are "capable" of performing. Man is sinful from the bottom up, and to assume that there is a way to sort of "get it out of one's system" makes no sense, because you could do evil for eternity and still never fulfill what one is capable of doing. I don't think I need to point to examples for this one, we all know of the serial killers/rapists of the world.
Also, sin is addictive. It's not like commiting one act will jolt you back, because you commit one, and you are compelled to commit more and worse. It's the ultimate degenerative drug. See quotes from the Jeffrey Daumer on the nature of serial killing later in his jail sentence/near the end of his life.
Point Second: MacDonald's philosophy here works only for someone who has already been regenerated by Christ, who can use an act of sin to sort of shock us back into righteous living after a period of wilderness. This is not what MacDonald believed though; he believed that this idea could apply to everyone. So aside from the very narrow application we can make from this, that Christ can use everything about the believer's life to pull us toward Him, this entire idea is flawed, and borders on universalism. MacDonald had an intense dislike to the idea of eternal damnation and torment that stemmed from His rejection of His father's belief in election, and there is some evidence to suggest that later in life he developed an almost reincarnation idea that combined elements of purgatory and eternal regeneration which either saves everyone or finally hits annihilationism to those who refuse to turn (again following the pattern of God not being in control--or even knowledge--of His own creation, which in my humble opinion makes absolutely no sense). This is sad to me, because I grew up thoroughly enjoying MacDonald's literature, but when I go back and read Him now, I see a lot of elements which are especially common now within a couple popular movements (The Emergent Church, for one). In some ways this is sort of the defrocking of one of my childhood literary heroes.
So, all of this is a long tangent to say that, while this idea can be applicable in a narrow sense to the believer, it on a universal scale reeks of both the post-modern and palagian ideas that God is not really in control, but just sort of sits back and watches to see what happens: Not only an errant view, but one which inspires no confidence in our salvation through Christ, and essentially makes our God no better than a block of wood.
One of my favourite quotes by Dr R.C.Sproul is this:
If there is one maverick molecule in all the universe, then God is not sovereign. And if God is not sovereign, He is not God.
I really like that, and I think that sums it up. Let us not worship a God who is not sovereign, but instead, let us worship the all-sovereign, all-powerful, ever-righteous God who does not change form, but is always the same.
That's all I have for now...the plan is to get on later and finish one of the numerous other posts that are half-done. Feel free to leave comments/discuss any of the above with me.
4 comments:
Please don't tell me you're dismissing everything of George MacDonald because of his tendency toward universalism ...
Nope, not everything. Just his theology. ;)
To be honest, I still like all of his fantasy literature. I get a little annoyed when he gets preachy, but I am much less likely to just take and ingest everything he writes now. And I doubt I'll take the time to read through his sermons.
Interesting stuff. Also, nice to see a new blog entry. :)
Yeah, finally. You'd think one of these times I would actually understand what it means to maintain this thing...
Post a Comment