Comments on: The Dead Speak: George MacDonald http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/ trying to nail down the shifting signifiers Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:54:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Kevin Benson http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2659 Kevin Benson Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:07:48 +0000 http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2659 Hi Anthony. Thanks for the quick response. I have enjoyed the few of your blog entries I have read. You have always been one of my favorite people to talk with about stuff like this, so it is fun to read and respond. I haven't read Lilith. It is one I will add to my reading list. About three years ago I put together an independent study class for Fuller on Chrisianity and Imagination. I used Phantastes by MacDonald, 'Til We Have Faces by Lewis, The Silmarillion by Tolkein, A Swiftly Tilting Planet by L'Engle and The Red Shoe by Anne Lamott as source texts and Christian Mythmakers (Roland Hein) and The Christian Imagination: The Practice of Faith in Literature and Writing (Leland Ryken) as text books. The idea of using the imagination to communicate truth to me is fascinating and something I am going to continue to explore. If there are any additional texts you can suggest that would be great. I have read some Charles Wiliams and GK Chesterton, both of which I enjoyed but had some trouble penetrating. Williams is so symbolic and Chesterton so witty and well read that it is sometimes hard for me to keep up. I knew about MacDonald's Universalist tendencies, but never really the theology behind his views. The idea of hell as curative does intrigue me. Where in his writings/sermons does he develop this thinking more? Hi Anthony. Thanks for the quick response. I have enjoyed the few of your blog entries I have read. You have always been one of my favorite people to talk with about stuff like this, so it is fun to read and respond.

I haven’t read Lilith. It is one I will add to my reading list. About three years ago I put together an independent study class for Fuller on Chrisianity and Imagination. I used Phantastes by MacDonald, ‘Til We Have Faces by Lewis, The Silmarillion by Tolkein, A Swiftly Tilting Planet by L’Engle and The Red Shoe by Anne Lamott as source texts and Christian Mythmakers (Roland Hein) and The Christian Imagination: The Practice of Faith in Literature and Writing (Leland Ryken) as text books. The idea of using the imagination to communicate truth to me is fascinating and something I am going to continue to explore. If there are any additional texts you can suggest that would be great. I have read some Charles Wiliams and GK Chesterton, both of which I enjoyed but had some trouble penetrating. Williams is so symbolic and Chesterton so witty and well read that it is sometimes hard for me to keep up.

I knew about MacDonald’s Universalist tendencies, but never really the theology behind his views. The idea of hell as curative does intrigue me. Where in his writings/sermons does he develop this thinking more?

]]> By: Anthony Velez http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2658 Anthony Velez Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:40:06 +0000 http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2658 Kevin, Good to hear from you! Have you read Lilith by MacDonald, which is similar in feel to Phantastes, but a little more accessible? You may very well know this, but I will say it anyways, both Phantastes and Lilith, and to some degree his more accessible fantasies are categorized as mythopoeia, which means myth-making. Those who write in this vein hold the view that myth contains spiritual and foundational truths regarding human existence, and consequently they write modern narratives to disclose those truths. In the case of MacDonald, he was disclosing those truths in light of the revelation given in Jesus Christ, and so his stories in this vein are often symbolically dense expressions of how we come to faith and in faith how we become like Christ. My experience is that it is not best to read his work trying to identify what each discrete thing means, rather the meaning is in the whole, and so you read and just let it sink in and over time you find yourself connecting with it and finding it make sense of things in your own life even as things in your life make sense of it. Regarding Hell, I understand that MacDonald was a modified Universalist, and so he believed that all would eventually come to genuine repentance either in the present age or somehow in the age to come. Consequently, Hell was not eternal punishment meted out to appease God's wrath, but rather was a means God employed to prompt people (a sever prompting) to see the inherent loathsomeness of their sin. In this manner Hell is more curative than punitive. I realize that this is a controversial idea, and I am not sure where I stand in relation to it, but I do like it. Kevin, Good to hear from you! Have you read Lilith by MacDonald, which is similar in feel to Phantastes, but a little more accessible? You may very well know this, but I will say it anyways, both Phantastes and Lilith, and to some degree his more accessible fantasies are categorized as mythopoeia, which means myth-making. Those who write in this vein hold the view that myth contains spiritual and foundational truths regarding human existence, and consequently they write modern narratives to disclose those truths. In the case of MacDonald, he was disclosing those truths in light of the revelation given in Jesus Christ, and so his stories in this vein are often symbolically dense expressions of how we come to faith and in faith how we become like Christ. My experience is that it is not best to read his work trying to identify what each discrete thing means, rather the meaning is in the whole, and so you read and just let it sink in and over time you find yourself connecting with it and finding it make sense of things in your own life even as things in your life make sense of it.

Regarding Hell, I understand that MacDonald was a modified Universalist, and so he believed that all would eventually come to genuine repentance either in the present age or somehow in the age to come. Consequently, Hell was not eternal punishment meted out to appease God’s wrath, but rather was a means God employed to prompt people (a sever prompting) to see the inherent loathsomeness of their sin. In this manner Hell is more curative than punitive. I realize that this is a controversial idea, and I am not sure where I stand in relation to it, but I do like it.

]]> By: Kevin Benson http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2656 Kevin Benson Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:16:11 +0000 http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2656 In the last four or five years I have become more intrigued by MacDonald. Some of his stuff I find rather difficult to enter into. While I am fascinated by Phantastes, I have a hard time figuring out what he is trying to communicate. I can get bits and pieces of it, but the piece as a whole is somewhat lost on me. This may be due to my science background and wanting everything to fit into a neat package. On the other hand, I love the Princess and the Goblin and the Princess and Curdie, perhaps because the stories are more "entertaining." In terms of the piece you have posted, I like his comment that "hell is God's and not the devil's." While we might not like to ascribe hell to God, if we give credit (or discredit) to Satan than we give him creative powers. Of course, this then gets into our understanding of what hell is, which I think is what MacDonald is trying to touch on. I am sure that I don't have a full enough loathing of my own sin. I certainly do not feel it could be said of me, "For to him his sin is hell." In the last four or five years I have become more intrigued by MacDonald. Some of his stuff I find rather difficult to enter into. While I am fascinated by Phantastes, I have a hard time figuring out what he is trying to communicate. I can get bits and pieces of it, but the piece as a whole is somewhat lost on me. This may be due to my science background and wanting everything to fit into a neat package. On the other hand, I love the Princess and the Goblin and the Princess and Curdie, perhaps because the stories are more “entertaining.”

In terms of the piece you have posted, I like his comment that “hell is God’s and not the devil’s.” While we might not like to ascribe hell to God, if we give credit (or discredit) to Satan than we give him creative powers. Of course, this then gets into our understanding of what hell is, which I think is what MacDonald is trying to touch on. I am sure that I don’t have a full enough loathing of my own sin. I certainly do not feel it could be said of me, “For to him his sin is hell.”

]]> By: Anthony Velez http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2606 Anthony Velez Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:42:40 +0000 http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2606 Actually, on this one George MacDonald did most of the thinking and effort. Also, when I create a post like this I am not sure what my expectations are. This is an excerpt from one of his sermons, which is something that is generally heard and mulled over, and usually not responded to in an immediate sense. Various friends have told me that they read my blog but often don't comment. With something like this, as well as some of the stuff that I write myself, I can see why that would happen. Most people don't want to get involved in a long response, and a lot of the stuff I write is not amenable to short responses, and so people will read and just think it over. Also, at best I have about fifteen readers for my blog and I don't think any of them consistently read my blog. But even though this is the case, I still find motivation just in having a format where there is the possibility that something I have written, or something I think should be read gets a venue. Since my profession is tied to writing, it is good to have something that keeps me writing. Actually, on this one George MacDonald did most of the thinking and effort. Also, when I create a post like this I am not sure what my expectations are. This is an excerpt from one of his sermons, which is something that is generally heard and mulled over, and usually not responded to in an immediate sense. Various friends have told me that they read my blog but often don’t comment. With something like this, as well as some of the stuff that I write myself, I can see why that would happen. Most people don’t want to get involved in a long response, and a lot of the stuff I write is not amenable to short responses, and so people will read and just think it over.

Also, at best I have about fifteen readers for my blog and I don’t think any of them consistently read my blog. But even though this is the case, I still find motivation just in having a format where there is the possibility that something I have written, or something I think should be read gets a venue. Since my profession is tied to writing, it is good to have something that keeps me writing.

]]> By: Simon Jones http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2604 Simon Jones Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:46:33 +0000 http://www.thedarkglass.net/2007/06/04/the-dead-speak-george-macdonald/#comment-2604 Don't you just hate it when you write a bloody great big long post, that you've put effort and thought into and you're well proud of. Then no bugger comments! Don’t you just hate it when you write a bloody great big long post, that you’ve put effort and thought into and you’re well proud of. Then no bugger comments!

]]>