Robert Falconer: Chapters 44 - 50


Robert returns after spending four years in Europe, having acquired a good grasp of the essence of the ideal Christian life: “. . . doing righteously, loving mercy, and walking humbly,” trusting God.   Dr Anderson suggests Robert attend medical classes for a couple years, while Shagar goes to India in the army and matures into a gentleman there.  They then go to London together, where they meet Shagar’s mother, who says she has seen Robert’s father.


Robert searches for him through London, becoming well-acquainted with the poorer sections of the city, and ministers to the people, always looking for his father.  Dr. Anderson, who is dying, recalls him to London, wills to him all his means, then passes away.


Robert visits his grannie in Rothieden, and in an extended conversation with her he explains to her the errors in her theological thinking in a loving way that convinces her.  The conversation contained in Chapter 47 is a splendid summary of MacDonald’s own convictions and theological conclusions, as well as a precise exposure of the shortcomings of the popular version of Calvinistic thinking that was prevalent in his day.  Then Robert finds Shagar’s mother and ministers to her as she is dying.


Returning to London, he begins working among the poor, extending friendship and encouraging them to help others.  He is surprised to meet Mary St. John, who is also working to help the needy.  MacDonald styles himself as Mr. Gordon and, speaking in the first person, tells how he met and became acquainted with Falconer.  In Robert’s explaining his work to him, MacDonald is giving his own attitudes toward the poor of his day.  He sees God’s working in their lives and wants to be a help to the purposes of God; much so-called charity misconceives the workings of God and hinders them rather then helping.


The emphasis MacDonald places upon the importance of helping the poor depicts something of his own attitudes and actions.  He was a close friend of Octavia Hill (perhaps Mary St. John is modeled after her), a very active social worker among the poor.  She was an associate of John Ruskin, also a good friend of MacDonald’s, who possessed a large fortune; together they sponsored several large projects of slum restoration in London.  MacDonald worked with them; he and Louisa as well invited large groups into their home where they entertained them with family dramatic presentations.  

WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO WHAT MACDONALD IS SAYING?  DOES IT MAKE GOOD SENSE? 


Comments

Sarah W said…
I find GMacD's ministry model . . . paradigm shattering. So many things. The idea of the gin-mama being the best parent for her baby, the baby potentially being its mama's door to salvation; the idea of knocking the brutal policeman down; the casualness with which GMacD says, "within 6 months she had drunk herself to death" of the woman who accepted 150 pounds for Nancy Kennedy. . . GMacD's discussion of the body of Christ, the church. He begins to describe it in the passage below:

"'Well, then: we are an undefined company of people, who have grown into human relations with each other naturally, through one attractive force—love for human beings, regarding them as human beings only in virtue of the divine in them.'

'But you must have some rules,' I insisted.

'None whatever. They would cause us only trouble.'"

?!!! No rules but only loving the divine in each person? Really? All of these things and many more have been working in my imagination since I began to read GMacD. I feel as if they have served as a sort of wrecking ball on the walls of my theology, on the categories of ministry, on the boxes into which I placed various people. Its all spilled out into a much greater and messier "WHOLE" that I can picture at times but I cannot yet articulate, at least not at will.

To your question, "does (what GMacD is saying) make good sense?" I would have to say, to my natural self, not at all. We need organizations, rules, categories, right? We need to be able to know we can do something "right", right? What if we adopt this rule-less-ness and someone does it "wrong"? But my new self, my spiritual self, the one who seeks to live LIFE by the power of Holy Spirit instead of rules and boxes, to that one his writing is light and song and freedom. It is HOPE.
Rolland Hein said…
Thanks sincerely for sharing your reactions; they are the reactions of many. MacDonald's point is that people tend simply to contribute to organizations and let them do the charitable work rather than becoming personally involved with needy people at hand. People should contribute to charitable organizations certainly, but that does not rid them of personal responsibility and involvement with the poor and needy.

What one should do is extend loving help to those within one's own sphere of influence, not seeking to change radically their situations, but rather to try to discern what is the next step in their spiritual development and nurture that. He is deeply convinced, as he says, that God is working in everyone's lives, doing his best for them, and there is an inherent good that can come out of every situation they are in, no matter how seemingly evil. Everyone's situation is unique; imposing abstract principles or "rules" may not be helpful. True spiritual growth is a slow, step by step process. One should rely entirely upon God, endeavoring to be his helper in enabling a person to take the next step.

MacDonald certainly practiced what he preached. He and Louisa took into their home what recovering alcoholics, needy women, and orphans that they could, held weekly evening meetings in their home for whoever would come, and actively supported Octavia Hill in her work among the London slums.

Popular posts from this blog

Thomas Wingfold: Chapters 46 - 63

Thomas Wingfold: Chapters 29 - 45

Thomas Wingfold Chapters 11 - 28