I'm definitely a Marilynne Robinson fanbody, but I'm always on the lookout for good critiques of her work. I think this one really misses the mark. https://twitter.com/ChurchLifeND/status/1127996915323428864

Robinson's aesthetic is definitely sacramental, but the fact that it differs from the Catholic sacramental vision shouldn't be a mark against it. She writes with a distinctly Protestant vision of sacramentality, and that means (in part) focusing on the goodness of creation.

I've written about Robinson's Protestant sacramental vision here: https://brill.com/abstract/journals/rart/18/4/article-p571_5.xml

Wilson critiques Jon Ames' theology. Fair enough, although I'm far from convinced she gets it right. On the issue of Ames and forgiveness, I think (of the top of my head) that Ames forgives Jack because Ames comes to a deeper understanding of his own depravity.

Ames assumes the worst about Jack. Yes, Jack has has sinned deeply, but in his suspicion of Jack, Ames attributes sins to him that he has not committed. As he realizes this, Ames is able to take a stance of forgiveness towards Jack. Ames doesn't ignore evil, he sees it in himself

The critique that Ames perpetuates the racism of Gilead is odd. Even if it is true, how does this stand as a critique of the novel? Do depictions of moral failings in characters count against the quality of the novel?

The voice that Robinson captures in Gilead is distinctive. It's the voice of Ames, and aged midwestern minister. And yes, he emphasizes the goodness and beauty in the world. However much Ames gives expression to Robinson's own theology, his thoughts cannot be reduced to hers.

In Home, Robinson captures the brokenness and the evil effects of Jack's sin very vividly. Evil and its costs are on full display. Robinson's theological vision is too broad and nuanced to be fully contained by any single character or novel.

As for her own theology, where does the claim that "For Robinson, the most repugnant part of scripture is God's sacrifice on the cross" come from? Wilson cites nothing that Robinson has written to that effect, and I can't think of any place she expresses a view resembling that.

Wilson cites Robinson's rejection of the "decent clause" in the Apostle's Creed right before making the claim. But surely, she doesn't intend for a rejection of that clause to justify the claim...I can't tell.

Wilson clearly has a strong preference for the aesthetics and theology of Flannary O'Connor over those of Robinson. Perfectly fine, but she treats them as though they are mutually exclusive. Plus, more importantly, I don't think she's gotten Robinson right to begin with.