Was George MacDonald a Universalist?

[Raven]

The archivist of the Windmill, Justin Summerville of Dregnot, wrote in a recent post about George MacDonald, describing him as "A Scottish minister of Universalist leanings. . ."
Now, some people use universalism to refer to the idea that all people will be saved. I think this is often related to the concept of pluralism, the idea that all religions are equally true or valid. Universalism as a term is vague, and it could confer the idea that all people, regardless of belief, will be "saved," and in the terms of Christianity, this could mean "go to heaven."
In his book, The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis used George MacDonald as a character, making him a guide to souls visiting the outskirts of heaven from purgatory or hell, and being essentially evangelized there. In this, C.S. Lewis showed a good understanding of MacDonald. MacDonald's theological thoughts on the afterlife are mostly found in his non-fantastical fiction writing, not including his explicitly theological and sermon literature and/or poetry. In his fiction writing, MacDonald makes it fairly clear that his thoughts on the afterlife are not so simple or abstract as the term "universalist" may imply.
   MacDonald believed, (I say this having read a lot of his work), that redemption -- i.e., God's pursuit and saving of lost souls -- does not end at physical death. So while MacDonald believed in hell, from what I have gathered, he also believed that God would continue to pursue the souls of the lost in hell with His unfailing love. One key to MacDonald's viewpoint is that he still believed that the lost soul must come into submission to the will of God, or in other words, there would also be repentance or conversion in hell. I believe MacDonald would have fully affirmed the gospel, and I do not believe that MacDonald was a religious/spiritual pluralist -- at least, I can recall no evidence of such in the work of his that I have read (I have read MacDonald for many years now).
        As a reader, I value MacDonald for a number of things. First is his ability to write about internal spiritual journeys and tell those stories using external plots and settings as well as spiritual discussion. This is probably why he writes powerful fairytale or fantastical literature -- MacDonald's sensitivity to creation and human action is fuel for his spiritual concerns. Secondly, MacDonald had a passion for the Father heart of God. MacDonald had keen insight into the power of God's redeeming love and the pursuit of the sinner. Everything in life, in MacDonald's works, is used by God to bring about repentance and the embrace of God as loving Father (though this does play into his afterlife beliefs, as he did not believe God's pursuit of the lost could reach an end).
        And finally, MacDonald has an extremely unusual ability to write characters who are simultaneously interesting and good. Many writers believe that they have to write deeply flawed characters for them to be interesting. MacDonald is the only author who I have ever read who can take a character that is even unrealistically good and make them intriguing and enjoyable. He can write sanctified characters who are both relatable and people I would want to know and talk with. I believe that MacDonald's insight into God's love and goodness allows him to write characters who are loving and good and full of interest and life. MacDonald shows how attractive God's goodness really is when displayed in characters in his books.

   MacDonald is my favorite author, and I have enjoyed reading his work for years. That said, I do not agree with MacDonald's thoughts on the afterlife. While I love much of MacDonald's insight into the love of God, his views on hell don't seem to me to be in sync with Jesus' teachings on hell. For example, Jesus references teaches about "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46 in the context of humans, as opposed to the other option, eternal life. In Matthew 25:1-13 Jesus tells the story of 10 virgins who are waiting for the bridegroom. Five foolish virgins don't prepare and run out of oil before the bridegroom returns. They go to the market to buy oil but miss the bridegroom's return and knock on the door of the wedding feast. "'Lord, Lord,' they said, open the door for us!' But he replied, 'Truly, I tell you, I don't know you.'" These are just a couple samples of Jesus' teachings, and certainly some could be found that might not exclude MacDonald's ideas, but I can't think of any that indicate that those ideas are true. Jesus emphasizes not waiting and being caught unprepared at his return. And in the case of the virgins, it was futile for them to knock after the fact.
All that said, as a follower of Christ, I embrace spiritual mystery, and there is a lot that is mysterious and unknown about the afterlife even with the revelation of scripture (that Jesus is both God and man simultaneously is a mystery, and the scripture talks about the mystery of the gospel; so it would be very difficult to affirm the scriptural teaching of Christ without also embracing mystery). The Bible tells us what we need to know, but doesn't always go into detail about these things. We know that faith in Christ and acceptance of Him as Lord results in salvation, but we don't know all the details of heaven and hell. I tend to think of hell as not necessarily a literal place of physical flame, but as an eternal, complete spiritual separation from God the torment of which could be described as being forever in flames. The flames, perhaps, being our own depravity. Left to ourselves in isolation, without the goodness or grace of God, there is only torment.
Even though the Bible doesn't fill in every detail, that doesn't mean it can't be worthwhile to discuss it, nor do we have to write off people who disagree on certain things, so long as we affirm the scriptural truth that we are saved through Christ alone. I imagine that God's plan concerning heaven and hell will be much better than we imagine, even if we currently may be offended at it, in the same way that people were offended at Jesus because He was not what they expected or wanted, even though He is the perfect representation of God, who is love and truth, and the exclusive path of the Father's saving grace.
   I recently came across a good quote by a guy named Kallistos Ware which seems to hit upon an important point:" "We see that it is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder."
   That said, we have to understand our English word for knowledge is limited. In German, for example, there are two words for "to know." One is "kennen," which is a personal knowledge. A person would "kennen" their friend. Then there is "wissen," which is a theoretical or scientific knowledge. One would "wissen" a computer programming language or a map. In this sense, I believe that we "kennen" God -- we enter into relationship with Him and get to know Him personally. But we can never approach any kind of definitive, rational, scientific, possessive knowledge of God. I say "possessive knowledge" because in a sense, I think when we feel we "wissen" something, there is an implied power over it -- a mastery of sorts.
        All of this is why the revelation of scripture is so important, because in it God tells us things we can hold on to about Himself that are true. And because of the discontinuity between Jesus' teachings in the Bible and MacDonald's views, I can't get on board with MacDonald. Nevertheless, I have devoured MacDonald's books for years, enjoying his marvelous insights into God's loves and the hearts of people, and engaging with his wonderful imaginative worlds.