george macdonald and the anthropology of love macdonald and the anthropology of love robin phillips...

George MacDonald and the Anthropology of Love

Robin Phillips

eorgeMacDonald’snovelRobert Falconercontainsascenethathashauntedmeeversincemyfatherreadittomeasachild.Robertliveswithhisgrandmother,astrictCalvinistmodelledafterMacDonald’sowngrandmother.Sherepresentsinanexaggeratedformtheextremesobrietyofthe19thcenturynonconformistsandservesasafoilforMacDonaldtoexpresshisownfrustrationswiththislifelesssystem,particularlyitsdryrationalism. InRobert’sgrandmotherweseethecompletesubordinationofalloflifetothenarrowlegalityoffederalCalvinism.Thelegalcategoriesonwhichsuchtheologyhingedwereallimportanttoher,whileartandmusicwereseennotsimplyasunnecessarydistractions,butpositiveidolatries.Robert,ontheotherhand,hassecretlybeenlearningtoplaytheviolin,havingdiscoveredinmusicarealitydeeperandmoresoul-satisfyingthanthetheologicaldribbleofhisgrandmother.Thescenethathasstayedwithmealltheseyearsiswhenthegrandmotherfinallydiscoverstheexistenceofhergrandson’sviolin:

RobertcamehometodinnerthenextdayafewminutesbeforeShargar.Asheenteredhisgrandmother’sparlour,astrangeodourgreetedhissense.Amomentmore,andhestoodrootedwithhorror,andhishairbegantoriseonhishead.Hisviolinlayonitsbackonthefire,andayellowtongueofflamewaslickingtheredlipsofaholeinitsbelly.Allitsstringswereshrivelledupsaveone,whichburstashegazed.Andbeside,sternasaDruidess,sathisgrandmotherinherchair,feedinghereyeswithgrimsatisfactiononthedetestablesacrifice.AtlengththerigidityofRobert’swholebeingrelaxedinaninvoluntaryhowllikethatofawildbeast,andheturnedandrushedfromthehouseinahelplessagonyofhorror.(MacDonaldFalconer)

Thecharacterizationofthiseventasaproviding“grimsatisfactiononthedetestablesacrifice”canbeseenagainstthebackdropofthefederalCalvinismthatcametoScotlandinthe16thand17thcenturiesandwhichMacDonaldwasrevoltingagainst.Underthenarrativetheytold,GodwasfundamentallyaGodofwrathwhocouldonlylovehumankindafterHisangerhadbeenassuaged.ThiswasachievedthroughGodtheFatherventingHisfuryonGodtheSonwhenthelattersufferedonthecross.ButlesttheFather’swrathbecompletelypacifiedandweforgethowmuchHehatessin,Jesusonlydiedfortheelect.ThisarrangementallowedbothsidesofGod’spersonalitytobeexpressed:itallowedGod’slovetobeexpressedonthoseforwhomJesushaddied;however,byelectingtoleavetherestofhumankind

North Wind 30 (2011): 25-37

G

26 Phillips

deadintheirsins,itwaspossibleforGod’swrathtocontinuetobeexpressedthroughouteternity. WithinScottishPresbyterianism,thisnarrativefoundexpressioninthetypeofharshlegalismembodiedbyRobert’sgrandmother.Althoughsalvationwastechnicallybygrace,youcouldonlyknowifyouwereamongtheelectthroughastrenuousprogramofgoodworks.Tounderscorethispoint,Scottishnon-conformistsengagedinwhatKerryDearbornhascalled“thefencingofthetable”(Dearborn13)wherebyparticipationinCommunionwasdependentonlivesofstrictpersonalholiness,mediatedthroughintenseintrospectionandself-examination.MacDonaldnodoubtspokeforhimselfasachildwhenhesaidthatRobertFalconerfeltthatchurchwas“wearinesstoeveryinchoffleshuponhisbone.”(MacDonaldRobert Falconer) AsayoungwomanMacDonald’spaternalgrandmother,IsobelRobertsonMacDonald,hadbeenresponsibleforthefamilyjoiningthedissentingchurchagainstthewishesofherhusbandwhoforeverremainedpartoftheestablishedChurchofScotland.Isobel,likehercounterpartinRobert Falconer,representedtheparticularlyharshstrandofScottishCalvinismwhichlookedupontheartsandtheimaginationwithdeepmistrust.Eventheviolinburningincidentwasbasedonarealevent,asIsobelhadallegedlyburnttheviolinbelongingtoGeorge’suncle,thinkingitwasaSatanicsnare.“Frivolity...wasinhereyesavice;loudlaughteralmostacrime;cards,andnovelles,asshecalledthem,weresuchinherestimation,astobebeyondmypowersofcharacterization.”(MacDonald,Robert Falconer) SuchwastheapproachtakenbyMacDonald’sgrandmother,withstrongreinforcementatchurchandatschool.TheotherkeyinfluenceinMacDonald’slifewashisfather,whomRollandHeindescribesas“anaustereandspiritedCalvinistofgreatpersonalstrengthandfortitudebuttheraresortthatcombinedpietywithgoodhumor,beingwiselytolerantofhumanfoibles”(Hein9).Astrictdisciplinarianwhenobediencewasinquestion,heturnedablindeyetohissons’frequentmischiefandescapades.Thoughlifeonthefamilyfarmwasdifficultandattimesstressful,theseniorMacDonaldwasamanofexuberantjoy,deeppersonalfaith,andanabidingconcernforthespiritualwelfareofhisninechildren.GeorgelearnedmuchabouttheLord,notsomuchfromwhathisfathersaid(thoughhisenthusiasticretellingsofBiblestoriesleftalastingimpactonthelad),butfromthefruitofthespiritemanatingfromhislife.C.S.Lewiswashardlyexaggeratingwhenhenotedthat“analmostperfectrelationshipwithhisfatherwastheearthlyrootofallhiswisdom.Fromhisownfather,hesaid,hefirstlearnedthatFatherhoodmustbeatthecoreoftheuniverse.”(C.S.Lewis,Introduction,Lilithv) ThecaringnatureexhibitedbytheseniorMacDonaldseemedat

George MacDonald and the Anthropology of Love 27

oddswithwhatGeorgeheardatchurchaboutHisheavenlyFather.ThegoodrelationshiphehadwithhisfatherseemstohavebeenpartlyresponsiblefortheyoungmanbeginningtodoubttheCalvinistportraitofGod.InhisnovelWeighed and WantinghedescribeshischildhoodstrugglesfeelingthathedidnotwantGodtolovehimunlessHealsolovedallpeople. WhenhegrewupMacDonaldwouldusehissermonsandnovelstocritiquethetheologyofhisupbringing,arguingthatitcanonlyworklikeapoisontodestroyaperson’ssoul.InRobert’sviolin-burninggrandmotherwegetaglimpseofwhatMacDonaldbelievedthistheologycoulddotoaperson.JustasGod’swrathcouldonlybesatisfiedbythebrutalsacrificeofHisson,sograndmotherFalconer’swrathcouldonlybesatisfiedbymakingasacrificeoutofRobert’sviolin.George MacDonald and the Anthropology of Rationalism WhilethedialoguesinMacDonald’snovelsdosometimesconfrontCalvinistdogmahead-on,Iwouldsuggestthathisconcernwasmoretounderminetherationalisticanthropologybehindit.Anthropologyis,ofcourse,thescienceofhumans,andIamusingthetermhereinthesensethatJamesK.A.SmithdidinhisbookDesiring the Kingdom todescribethedifferentframeworksforansweringquestionssuchas,‘Whatisthefundamentalsourceofouridentity?Whatisthemostcentralaspectofusaspeople?’TheimplicitsubtextbehindScottishCalvinismwasaviewofmanorwomanasbeingfirstandforemostathinkingcreature,defined,savedandsustainedbyhisorhertheologicaldogmas.Thisanthropology,whichcanbedescribedas“rationalistic”or“cognitivist”formedthebackdroptomuchofwhatMacDonaldreactedagainstinhiswritings. Thefixationwithachievingprecisionintheminutiaoftheology(especiallythelegalcategoriessurroundingreprobationandtheatonement)hadledtoahighlyintellectualizedgospelthatnotonlymitigatedagainstasenseofmysteryandwonder,butagainstthemoretangibleexpressionsofbasicloveandobedience’stoChrist’scommands.MacDonald’snovelsarefullofcharacterswhoputanenormouspremiumonthefinerpointsoftheologywhileneglectingwhatourLordcalled“theweightiermattersofthelaw.”Theburningoftheinstrument(forgoodtheologicalreasonsinthegrandmother’smind)isparadigmaticofthisrationalisticanthropology,illustratingthesubordinatingofwhatisgood,lovely,andbeautifulonthealtaroftheologicalrationalism. Bycontrast,MacDonaldwouldalwaysbedistrustingofabstracttheologicalsystems,sometimesalmosttothepointofbecominganti-intellectualhimself.Wegetaglimpseofthisdistrustofintellectualsystems

28 Phillips

inMalcolm whereweread:IfIknewofatheoryinwhichwasneveranuncompletedarchorturret,inwhosecirclingwallwasneveraraggedbreach,thattheoryIshouldknowbuttoavoid:suchgapsaretheeternalwindowsthroughwhichthedawnshalllookin.Acompletetheoryisavaultofstonearoundthetheorist—whoseverybeingyetdependsonroomtogrow.(MacDonald193)

An Anthropology of Doing MacDonaldwouldalwaysremaindeeplydistrustfulofthetypeofrationalisticanthropologythattendedtooperateasifhumanbeingsarefirstandforemostthinkingthings.WhileMacDonaldneverpresentedanalternativeanthropologyinanydirectorexplicitway,thethoughtfulreadercandiscernanimplicitanthropologythathasstrongaffinitieswiththeexistentialisttradition,particularlySørenKierkegaard.Accordingtothemoreexistentialistanthropology,itiswhatwedo,notwhatwethink,thatdefines,saves,andsustainsthehumanperson.JustasundertheCalvinismofMacDonald’syoutheverythingwassubordinatedtothedoctrinal,thusproducingananthropologyofrationalism,itisnoexaggerationtosaythatMacDonald’salternativeanthropologysubordinateseverythingtotheethical.Whatwedoprecedeswhoweare.Underthisexistentialparadigm,humanidentity,faith,andevensalvationitselfarefirstandforemostquestionsofobedience.ItisherethatMacDonaldremainedindebtedtohisgrandmother’sCalvinismperhapsmorethanherealized,particularitsemphasisonthenecessaryrolethatworksplayedinprovingthatyouwereamongtheelect. MacDonaldhadgreatlystruggledwiththeroleofworksintheChristianlife,andasayoungmanhewrotetohisfather,“Mygreatestdifficultyalwaysis—HowdoIknowthatmyfaithisofalastingkindandsuchaswillproducefruits”(citedinDearborn13).Longafterherejectedthedoctrineofelection,MacDonaldneverabandonedtheideathatgoodworks(particularlyobediencetothecommandsofChrist)areessentialtoprovingthatonehastruefaith.Forexample,inhisUnspoken Sermons,MacDonaldsuggeststhatforfaithtobevital,trueandsalvificitmustbeobedient,saying,“ButthepoorestfaithinthelivingGod,theGodrevealedinChristJesus,ifitbevital,true,thatisobedient,isthebeginningofthewaytoknowhim,andtoknowhimiseternallife.Ifyoumeanbyfaithanythingofadifferentkind,thatfaithwillnotsaveyou”(Unspoken Sermons—Series I, II, and III214). Elsewherehewrites,“Faithisthatwhich,knowingtheLord’swill,goesanddoesit...”(citedinGeorgeMacDonaldandLewis16).UnderCalvinism,goodworkswerethefruitofwhatyoubelieved,butMacDonaldhasreversedthisbysuggestingthatwhatwebelieveisdeterminedbywhat


wedo.Ahuman’srealbeliefisnotwhatheorshethinksbutwhatheorshedoes.ToquoteagainfromhisUnspoken Sermons:

fortoholdathingwiththeintellect,isnottobelieveit.Aman’srealbeliefisthatwhichhelivesby;andthatwhichthemanImeanlivesby,istheloveofGod,andobediencetohislaw,sofarashehasrecognizedit.(209)

Doyouask,“Whatisfaithinhim?”Ianswer...doingashetellsyou.Icanfindnowordsstrongenoughtoservefortheweightofthisnecessity—thisobedience.Itistheoneterribleheresyofthechurch,thatithasalwaysbeenpresentingsomethingelsethanobedienceasfaithinChrist.(210)

MacDonaldfurtherstates:Webelieve,therefore,thatnothingwilldosomuchfortheintellectortheimaginationas being good . . .(A Dish of Orts, Chiefly Papers on the Imagination, and on Shakspere36)

MacDonald’suseofethicsasanorganizingprincipleforhistheologyprovidedhimwithanalternativeexplanationoftheatonement.RejectingthesubstitutionaryatonementtheologyofScottishPresbyterianism,hedevelopedanexplanationofthecrossinwhichmanisreconciledtoGodmorethroughChrist’sexampleofgenuineself-denialthanbyanythinginherentinthedeathitself.Weappropriatethatself-denialthroughourobedience—obediencewhichmakespossibleourownregenerationbytheSpiritandoursubsequentknowledgeofthetruth:

Ibelievethattohimwhoobeys,andthusopensthedoorsofhishearttoreceivetheeternalgift,Godgivesthespiritofhisson,thespiritofhimself,tobeinhim,andleadhimtotheunderstandingofalltruth...(Unspoken Sermons281)

TheCalvinismofMacDonald’supbringingtaughtthattheSpiritisthecauseofourobedience,whereasintheabovequotationitisclearthatMacDonaldhasreversedthis:theSpiritisgiventousastheresultofobediencetoGod’scommands,leadingtounderstanding.Worksarenolongerthefruitoffaith,butthemeanstofaith. Thisseemstoimplyaparticularanthropologyinwhichahumanisfirstandforemostadoer.Itisourwill,nottheintellect,thatistheprimarynexusofthehumanperson. Thisexistentialanthropologywasnotwithoutitscontradictions.Whilehefrequentlyassertedthatobedienceprecedesunderstanding,MacDonaldsometimesalsospeaksofunderstandingasapreconditiontoobedience.AshewroteinthesecondvolumeofUnspoken Sermons:

ButforhimwhoisinearnestaboutthewillofGod,itisofendlessconsequencethatheshouldthinkrightlyofGod.He

30 Phillips

cannotcomeclosetohim,cannottrulyknowhiswill,whilehisnotionofhimisinanypointthatofafalsegod.Thethingshowsitselfabsurd.(151)

Incontradistinctiontosomeoftheearliercitationswehavereviewed,whichsuggestedthattheobedienceisthepathwaytocorrectknowledgeofGod,MacDonaldisheresuggestingthatthinkingrightlyaboutGodmustbepriortoaction.Ifweputthesetwosetsofthoughtstogether,weareleftwithaviciouscycle:wecannotknowGodunlessweobeyHim,butwecannotobeyHimunlessweknowHim.MacDonaldgivesusnocluehowwearetoescapefromthis,norisitcertainthatthechargeofviciouscircularitywouldhavemuchbotheredtheScotsmanwhospentlittleornoenergytryingtomakehisideasconformtotherigorsoflogic. Anotherdifficultywiththeexistentialanthropologyismorepracticalandarisesfromthesubordinationoffaithtoobedience.IfitisonlythroughthecrucibleofobediencethatweforgeouridentityaschildrenofGod,thenhowcananyofuseverbecertainthatwehaveenoughgoodworkstoestablishthisidentity?Apartfromtheproblemofsemi-PelagianismthatmaybelegitimatelylevelledagainstMacDonald’sexistentialistanthropology,itleavesuswithafaiththatcanneverrestconfidentlyinouridentityaschildrenofGodsincesuchidentityisalwaysfirstdependentonourobedience.Forthoseofuswhoareacutelyconsciousthatourobedienceis,atbest,partialandimperfect,MacDonald’sframeworkseemstoofferlittlemorecomfortthanthereligionofhisgrandmother.MacDonald’sGodwaseasytopleaseandhardtosatisfy,butwemaylegitimatelyquestionhowsuchaGodcouldever besatisfied.IfGodcanbesatisfiedonlytotheextentthatwereplicatethealmostsuperhumanlivesoftherolemodelsinMacDonald’snovels,whathopeisthereforordinarypeopleintherealworld? WhilesuchconcernsmaysuggestthatMacDonaldmayhaveunwittinglyretainedmoreoftheimprintofhisharshgrandmotherthanherealized,therewasafundamentaldifferencebetweenMacDonaldandhisgrandmother.Whileespousingthedoctrinesofgrace,hisgrandmother’sliferadiatedadeficitofrealgrace;bycontract,thecharactersinMacDonald’snovels,likeMacDonaldhimself,liveandbreathegraceeventhoughMacDonaldfoundnoplaceforgracewithinhissoteriology—asoteriologyrootedinhisanthropologyofdoing. CertainlyifallwehadwereMacDonald’ssermonsandmoralisticnovels,wemightconcludethatthelastwordonMacDonald’santhropologyisthathumanbeingsareessentiallydefinedbywhattheydo.Whilethehumanbeingisaheart,mindandbody,beforeheorsheisanyoftheseheorsheisawill.


An Anthropology of Love Thankfully,MacDonald’ssermonsandnovelsarenotallwehave.Iwouldliketosuggestthatinhisfantasyandpoeticworks,MacDonaldimplicitlygivesusananthropologythattempersthatofhismoralisticexistentialism.Weinfactgettheglimpseofananthropologyoflovewhichbalancestheanthropologyofdoingandmoreeffectivelyunderminestherationalismofhisgrandmother.ThisanthropologyofloverunsalongsideMacDonald’santhropologyofdoing,andisultimatelywhattransformsthelatterintosomethinglife-givingandfilledwithgrace. Iamusingthelanguage“anthropologyoflove”todescribeaframeworkhingingonthenotionthathumanidentityisnotfirstandforemostaquestionofdoctrines(whatwethink)liketherationalistswouldmaintain,norisitfirstandforemostamatterofmorals(whatwedo);rather,thedeepestseatofhumanidentityislocatedfirstandforemostinwhatwelove.Loveprecedesbothdoingandthinkingandistheenergizingprinciplebehindboththings.Thisrecognizesthatourultimatelovesaretiedtoacertainvisionofwhatwethinkhumanflourishinglookslikewhichunconsciouslyorientsustoconsidercertainthingsworthyofouradoration.Butthatvisionisoftenaffectiveandimplicitbeforeitbecomesthematerialofdirectcognition.ItisaninchoatevisionthatgrabsourunconsciouswithanaestheticpullinawaysimilartohowDavidBrooksdescribedtheformationofpoliticalpreferencesinhisbookThe Social Animal. ThoughMacDonaldneverarticulatedtheanthropologyofloveintheformalwaythatIamdoinghere,thesecategoriesdoseemtoliebehindanumberofhispreoccupations,notleasthisabidingconcerntoshowthattheobjectsofourbeliefsneedtonotonlybetrue,butalsolovely.Becausehumanbeingsarecreaturesdefinedbytheirloves,wemustbehelpedtofirstlovethatwhichisgood,toseehowthegoodandthetrueareactuallyworthyofouradoration.AndthatispreciselywhatMacDonaldconstantlystrivestoenablehisreaderstodo.Hisimaginativeworksappealtousonthisdeeperlevel,showingusavisionofthegoodlifethatseepsintoourverygut,atleastifweletit. MacDonaldhadgoodpersonalreasonsforadoptingthisapproach.DuringhiscollegedayshisreadingofpoetryandtheGermanromanceshadstirredhisimaginationwithimagesofloveliness,whilehiscloseaffinitywiththenaturalworldconstantlyfedadeepattractionforthingsofbeauty.This,however,seemedatoddswiththereligionofhisupbringing,whichheassociatednotwithbeautybutwithugliness.InhisnovelDavid Elginbrod hewouldgosofarastosarcasticallysuggestthattheScottishreformershadattemptedtocreateuglymodelsofworship:

32 Phillips

OnegrandaimofthereformersoftheScottishecclesiasticalmodesappearstohavebeentokeeptheworshippureandtheworshipperssincere,byembodyingthewholeintheugliestformsthatcouldbeassociatedwiththenameofChristianity.(93)

ThishadcreatedadichotomyinMacDonald’smindbetweenbeautyandfaith,religionandloveliness.AsMacDonaldcontinuedtoreadtheBible,especiallythegospels,hecametorealizethatthesetwosidesofhimwerenotincompetition.WritingtohisfatherinApril1847,MacDonaldconfessed,“OneofmygreatestdifficultiesinconsentingtothinkofreligionwasthatIthoughtIshouldhavetogiveupmybeautifulthoughtsandloveforthethingsGodhasmade.”(GeorgeMacDonald,citedinGeorgeMacDonaldandHisWife108)HewentontosayhowreadingtheBiblewaschanginghisperspective:

If[thegospelofChrist]betrue,everythingintheuniverseisglorious,exceptsin....IlovemyBiblemore—Iamalwaysfindingoutsomethingnewinit—Iseemtohavehadeverythingtolearnoveragain....ButIfindthatthehappinessspringingfromallthingsnotinthemselvessinfulismuchincreasedbyreligion.GodistheGodofthebeautiful,ReligiontheloveoftheBeautiful,andHeaventhehomeoftheBeautiful,NatureistenfoldbrighterinthesunofRighteousness,andmyloveofNatureismoreintensesinceIbecameaChristian—ifindeedIamone.(GeorgeMacDonald,An Expression of Character18)

GraduallyMacDonaldhadcometoappreciatethathisimaginationandloveofbeautywerenotseparatetohisrelationshipwithChrist,butintegrallyconnectedtoit.KerryDearborndescribeshow“ratherthanviewingtheimaginationandtheartsassatanicsnares,MacDonaldbegantoconsiderthemasintimatelyconnectedwithGod’sgoodcreation...henotonlysawtheimagination’spotentialtoharmonizewithGod’screativeways,butalsotoconveysomethingofGod’snature”(27).HewouldlaterexpressthisunderstandinginhisbookEngland’s Antiphon, inwhichheputforwardwhatDearbornhascalled“thebasicinterconnectednessoftheologyandpoetry”(27). ItwasthisvisionthatwouldlaterbeinfusedsoskilfullyintoMacDonald’sfantasyworks.AfteraccompanyingMr.VanethroughthemysteriouslandscapeinLilith orfollowingDiamond’stravelswithLadyNorthWindorjourneyingwithCurdietoGwyntystorm,webegintoseethemysteryandenchantmentwithwhichourrealworldhasbeeninfused.WebegintofeelthattheworldofFaerie,asMacDonaldlikedtospellit,hasinvadedtheworldofmenor,asChestertonputitwhenwritingaboutMacDonald,that“thefairy-talewastheinsideoftheordinarystoryandnot


theoutside.”(303)ThisisalsowhatC.S.LewisdiscoveredaboutMacDonald,andwhyithelpedtonudgehimawayfromthematerialismofhisatheisticworldview.“Thequalitywhichhadenchantedmeinhisimaginativeworks,”Lewiswrote,“turnedouttobethequalityoftherealuniverse,thedivine,magical,terrifyingandecstaticrealityinwhichwealllive”(Prefacexxxviii).InA Dish of Orts,MacDonaldsuggeststhatourworldiseverybitasmagical,everybitaswonderfulandeverybitasenchantedastheworldofFairyland.HewrotemovinglyinA Dish of Ortsofwhathappenswhen“theworldbeginstocomealivearound[aperson]”:

Hebeginstofeelthatthestarsarestrange,thatthemoonissad,thatthesunriseismighty.Hebeginstoseeinthemallthesomethingmencallbeauty.Hewilllieonthesunnybankandgazeintotheblueheaventillhissoulseemstofloatabroadandminglewiththeinfinitemadevisible,withtheboundlesscondensedintocolourandshape.Therushofthewaterthroughthestilltwilight,underthefaintgleamoftheexhaustedwest,makesinhisearsamelodyheisalmostawarehecannotunderstand.(49)

HereMacDonaldwasoncommongroundwith19thcenturyromanticslikeWordsworthandTennyson,whoalsosawtheworldpervadedwithbeautyandspirituality.YetMacDonaldgoesonestepfurther.Heshowedthatitisgoodnesswhichinfusesourworldwithmeaningandmakesitbeautiful.Incontrastbothtotheprosaicmoralismofhisgrandmother,whichsuckedallbeautyoutofgoodness,aswellasthesubjectivesentimentalismoftheromanticmovement,whichuntetheredbeautyfromitsfoundationsinobjectivegoodness,MacDonaldshowedthatbeautyandobjectivegoodnesscannotbeseparated.UltimatelythiswasbecauseofChrist,inwhosepersongoodness,truth,andbeautyexistedinperfectunity.Theinterconnectednessbetweenthetrinityofgoodness,truthandbeautymeantthattoseparateanyofthesethreewastodoviolencetotheothers.AsheputitinOrts,“beautyistheonlystuffinwhichTruthcanbeclothed...”(315).Again,inoneofhissonnetshespokeoftheunfortunatedisconnectionbetweenbeautyandtruthamongthosewhocaredlittleforthelatter:

Fromthebeginninggoodandfairareone,Butmenthebeautyfromthetruthwillpart,And,thoughthetruthiseverbeauty’sheart,Afterthebeautywill,short-breathed,run,Andtheindwellingtruthdenyandshun(The Poetical Works of George MacDonald259)

InthisMacDonaldanticipatedthethoughtofthe20thcenturyRomanCatholictheologianHansUrsvonBalthasar,whowrote,

Wenolongerdaretobelieveinbeautyandwemakeofita

34 Phillips

mereappearanceinorderthemoreeasilytodisposeofit.Oursituationtodayshowsthatbeautydemandsforitselfatleastasmuchcourageanddecisionasdotruthandgoodness,andshewillnotallowherselftobeseparatedandbannedfromhertwosisterswithouttakingthemalongwithherselfinanactofmysteriousvengeance.(citedinTreier,Husbands,andLundin115)

Suchmysteriousvengeanceoccurredwhen,aroundtheendofMacDonald’slife,theRomanticmovementtrailedoffintoobscurationandperversity.WithpropheticinsightMacDonaldhadinadvertentlypredictedthisinhisessay,“ASketchofIndividualDevelopment”whenhehadobservedthat“thesouldepartsfromthefaceofbeauty,whentheeyebeginstodoubtiftherebeanysoulbehindit”(A Dish of Orts60).Insomeofhisfairytalesheshowsuswhathappenswhenbeautybecomesdisconnectedfromgoodnessandtruth.ThecharacteroftheLilithinhisbookLilith,ortheAldertreeinPhantastes, giveastarkportrayalofbeautyisdisengagedfromgoodnessandtruth.ThiswasalsoathemethatMacDonaldexploredinoneofhissonnetsfromthecollectionquotedearlier:

MenmaypursuetheBeautiful,whiletheyLovenottheGood,thelifeofalltheFair;Keen-eyedforbeauty,theywillfinditwhereThedarknessoftheireyeshathpowertoslayThevisionofthegoodinbeauty’sray,Thoughfruitsthesamelife-givingbranchesbear.

ItisthissenseofbeautyintimatelyconnectedwithbothtruthandgoodnessthatraisesMacDonald’snovelsabovewhatwouldotherwisebetediousVictorianmoralism.ItistruethatbecauseMacDonaldthoughtofhisnovelsasanextensionofhisfailedpulpitministrythattheyoftensufferfrombeingheavyanddidactic.However,Isuggestthattheirchiefvalueliesnotintheirliteraryqualitybutinthewaythattheyconveytousthatrighteousnessisattractive,thattheChristianfaithisnotmerelyworthyofassent,butoflove.Inthisway,thesubtexttothenovelsconstantlyremainswhatIamcallingtheanthropologyoflove. Hisnovelsdothisinavarietyofways,notleastthroughprotagoniststhatshowuswhatitmeanstobreathegraceinthemidstofconflict,togivecharitablyinthemidstofpoverty,tomodelChrist’sloveinthemidstofsuspicionandmistrust,tobringhopeinthemidstofsuffering,andtoliveaccordingtoChrist’scommandsinthemidstofhypocrisy,compromise,andself-centredness.WhileMacDonald’scharactersconstantlyremindusthatnothingisasimportantasapersondoinghisorherduty(whichheisalwayscarefultodefineasobeyingthewordsoftheMaster),hischaractersalso


showusthatnothingisasexciting,life-givingandattractiveasdoingmydutyinthenextfiveminutes.Inthisregard,MacDonaldimplicitlyappealstothehumanpersonasalover,andthenusestheimaginationtorenderone’sdutyattractive.MacDonald’scharactersthusendupachievingwhathistheologyofobediencecouldnot,swallowingtheanthropologyofdoingintotheanthropologyofloving.HischaractersalsoachievewhatgrandmotherMacDonaldcouldneverdo,modellingtoustheloveable-nessoftheChristianfaith. AlthoughMacDonaldusesbeautytodemonstratethelovelinessoftheChristianfaith,heneverlapsesintotheerrorofhisromanticistcontemporariestomakebeautyanendinitself.BeautyisalwayssomethingthatpointsusbeyondtheuniversetoGod’sgoodness.InfailingtodiscernGod’sgoodnessbehindbeauty,theEnglishRomanticpoetsneverwentfarenough.JohnKeats’poem“OdeonaGrecianUrn”wastypical:

“Beautyistruth,truthbeauty,”—thatisallYeknowonearth,andallyeneedtoknow.(Quiller-Couch730)

Bycontrast,MacDonaldtaughtthattherewassomethingmoreweneededtoknow,namelythatthereisanultimateSourcefromwhichallbeautysprings.Thoughhedidn’tconflatetruthandbeautyasKeatsdid(forMacDonaldtheyweredistinguishablebutnotdivisible),heagreedthattheywereconnectedandspokeofhoping“forendlessformsofbeautyinformedoftruth”(A Dish of Orts25).TheconnectionbetweentruthandbeautyarosebyvirtueofbothbeingderivativefromGod.“God’sheartisthefountofbeauty”hewroteinhispoem“ABookofDreams.”HetookupthissamethemelaterinA Dish of Orts:“Letusgofurtherand,lookingatbeauty,believethatGodisthefirstofartists;thathehasputbeautyintonature,knowinghowitwillaffectus,andintendingthatitshouldsoaffectus;thathehasembodiedhisowngrandthoughtsthusthatwemightseethemandbeglad”(A Dish of Orts246–247). IftheAldertreeinPhantastesshowsusbeautydetachedfromgoodness,itwasMacDonald’sviolin-burninggrandmotherwhoshowsusgoodnessdetachedfrombeauty.WhileMacDonaldsometimesseemstolapseintoacompetinganthropologyofworks,suggestingthatourfundamentalidentityisinwhatwedo,whenwegiveattentiontoMacDonald’simaginativecorpuswefindadeeperpictureofthehumanperson,namelyonewhoisfirstandforemostdefinedbyhisorherloves.Becauseoftheprimacyoflove,bothtruthandgoodnessneedtobeclothedinwhatisbeautifulbeforetheycanbeembraced.EchoingSocrateswhoonceobservedthattheobjectofeducationistomakeuslovewhatisbeautiful,MacDonaldunderstoodthatifthegoodandthetruearenotclothedinbeauty,theywillhavenoformativeinfluenceonthehumanperson.MorerecentlyStratfordCaldecotttookupthesamethemeinhisbookBeauty for Truth’s Sake,notingthat“Beautyistheradianceofthetrueandthegood,anditiswhatattractsustoboth”(31).

36 Phillips

ThiswasMacDonald’sultimateanswertotheCalvinismofhisupbringing.19thcenturyfederalCalvinismwasmediatedthroughadryrationalismthatfixatedonthelegalcategoriesoftheatonementbuthadlittleroomforbeautyandimagination.AsimportantasobediencewaswithinMacDonald’stheologicalschema,whatwasmoreimportantwasthattheGodweworshipbelovely,andthereforeworthyofourobedience.ThatiswhyacasecanbemadeforreadingMacDonald’sfantasyworksbeforehisnovels,sinceitisthelatterwhichuseimaginativesettingstoshowforththebeautyofholiness.RecallhowtheyoungLewisfeltthatPhantasteshadsomeenormousmeaningevenbeforehisconsciousmindcouldunderstandwhatthatmeaningwas.LewisdideventuallycometounderstandthatthepeculiarqualityheencounteredinPhantastes was,infact,Holiness.ReflectingontheexperienceLewissaid,“Ididnotyetknow(andIwaslonginlearning)thenameofthenewquality,thebrightshadow,thatrestedonthetravelsofAnodos.Idonow.ItwasHoliness(173). WhenMacDonald’ssermonsaremadetobetheprimaryentrywayintohisthought,theprovisionalconclusionoftheearliersectionmaystand:MacDonaldapproachedhumanswithanexistentialistanthropologythatdefinesusfirstandforemostbywhatwedo.However,byfactoringinMacDonald’spoeticandfantasticworksandtheninterpretingthenovelsintheirlight,weseethatanotherimportantthemeemergesandsupersedestheexistential:thathumanbeingsarefundamentallypeoplewholove.Preciselybecausewearedrivenbyourloves,itisimportantthatbothtruthandgoodnessbeclothedinbeautyinordertobecomelovable.Tothedegreethatthiswashisconcern,MacDonaldanticipatesatypeofaestheticapologeticthatwouldconcernlaterwriterslikeG.K.Chesterton,DorothySayersandC.S.Lewis,whoseaimwastorescueChristianitynotsomuchfromthechargeoffalsehoodasfromthechargeoftedium,uglinessanddullness.

WorksCitedBrooks,David.The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement. NewYork:RandomHouse,2011.Print.Caldecott,Stratford.Beauty for Truth’s Sake: On the Re-enchantment of Education. BrazosPress,2009.Print.Chesterton,G.K.etal.In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton. IgnatiusPress,2011.Print.Dearborn,Kerry.Baptized Imagination: The Theology of George MacDonald. Burlington,VT:AshgatePublishing,2006.Print.Hein,Rolland.George MacDonald: Victorian Mythmaker.Nashville,TN:StarSong, 1993.Print.Lewis,C.S.Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life.HoughtonMifflin, 1995.Print.


MacDonald,G.Unspoken Sermons—Series I, II, and III.NuvisionPublications, 2007.Print.MacDonald,George.A Dish of Orts: Chiefly Papers on the Imagination, and on Shakespere.London:Sampson,Low,Marston,1893.Print.—.An Expression of Character: The Letters of George Macdonald. GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1994.Print.—.David Elginbrod.London:HurstandBlackett,1863.Print.—.Lilith: A Romance.GrandRapids:EerdmansPublishing,1981.Print.—.Malcolm: A Romance.NewYork:Lippincott,1875.Print.—.Robert Falconer.ChristianClassicsEtherealLibrary.Web.9Jan.2012.—.The Poetical Works of George MacDonald.London:Chatto&Windus,1893. Print.—.Unspoken Sermons.KessingerPublishing,2004.Print.—.Unspoken Sermons - Series I, II, and III. NuVisionPublications,2007. Print.MacDonald,George,andC.S.Lewis.George MacDonald: An Anthology : 356 Readings.NewYork:HarperCollins,2001.Print.Macdonald,Greville.George MacDonald and His Wife.London:G.Allen&Unwin, 1924.Print.Quiller-Couch,SirArthur.The Oxford Book of English Verse 1250 - 1918.New Edition.London:OxfordUP,1939.Print.Smith,JamesK.A.Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation.BakerAcademic,2009.Print.Treier,DanielJ.,MarkHusbands,andRogerLundin.The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts.InterVarsityPress,2007.Print.

george macdonald and the anthropology of love macdonald and the anthropology of love robin phillips...

Documents