A Silly Skeptic Reads Orthodoxy

A Silly Skeptic’s guide to Orthodoxy

I read G.K. Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy in my junior year of college. At the time, my overwhelming reaction was, “It’s got some funny lines in it, but it’s kind of annoying sometimes too, so I guess it’s okay.”

Now I’m reading it again, mostly to see what kind of comments I wrote in the margins.

So, Chapter 1.

Chesterton begins by explaining that this book is an answer to some of his critics. Previously, he had released the book Heretics, which criticized some ideas he disagreed with. So Chesterton’s detractor’s criticized Chesterton for attacking ideas without providing any viable alternatives. So Orthodoxy is sort of Chesterton’s companion piece to Heretics, describing in more detail what the author does believe.

This is a personal story—the chronicle of one man’s evolving thought and imaginative life. Therefore, I think Chesterton is saying I as the reader shouldn’t get too bogged down in the details but instead judge the work on its emotional resonance.

Chesterton writes,

I have attempted in a vague and personal way, in a set of mental pictures rather than in a series of deductions, to state the philosophy in which I have come to believe. I will not call it my philosophy; for I did not make it. God and humanity made it; and it made me. (1-2)

Wait….

Which is it? Am I reading a “vague and personal” story that shouldn’t be held to the standard of scientific “deductions,” or is it universal truth made by “God and man?”

Hmmmm.

I suspect it may turn out to be both at once. If at any point Chesterton’s writing makes no sense, his fans will likely say that it’s merely imagery and not meant to be taken seriously. Otherwise Chesterton’s writing is the Word of God and must be agreed with at all costs. It’s like when your Pastor blatantly misinterprets a passage and says, “I’m no expert. I’m a normal guy like you…Now, if you disagree with this, don’t take it up with me. Take it up with Gawd ‘cuz it’s HIS word yo!”

Not fooled.

Chesterton goes on to describe a favorite fairy tale of his about a sailor who got turned around and landed back in England without knowing it, and then “discovered” his own home as if for the first time. I like this fairy tale. It reminds us that we should never stop appreciating the extraordinary in the ordinary. Chesterton’s character Innocent Smith in Manalive exemplifies this attitude.

In the middle of the story, Chesterton does provide us with this gem.

What could be better than to have all the fun of discovering South Africa without the disgusting necessity of landing there? (2)

My condolences to all y’alls who live in South Africa. (A very big portion of the earth, by the way.) Y’all are disgusting. I mean, Chesterton could have gone with “inconvenient” or “arduous” as if he were describing the journey itself, but nope. Disgusting.

Of course, as with the imaginative life, so with the spiritual life, where Chesterton writes he has always sought a combination of the strange and the familiar. As a lover of fantasy, I can relate a lot to this. A lot of my favorite books are very bizarre and out there and very intuitive at the same time. The situations may be strange but they strike a chord somewhere deep inside me.

Chesterton calls this combination “romance.” Fair enough, but he goes on to say,

The very word ‘romance’ has in it the mystery and ancient meaning of Rome. (3)

So… “Brother-Killer?” Correct my mythology, but wasn’t Romulus the wolf-raised kid who killed his own brother, and that’s why Rome is named after him?

Chesterton takes a premise for his book that both he and the reader want this kind of active imaginative life,

…a life such as western man at any rate always seems to have desired. (3)

I know it’s a throwaway line, but this opens up so many questions for me. I assume Chesterton is doing that thing where he writes all women as having penises and being included in “Man.” That’s a given. But does he really think that non-Europeans don’t have imagination? Hey, I read Kaguya Hime, buster, and I can tell you: WRONG.

And does he actually think there are no boring people among Europeans? (Hey, Chesterton? You know that Nietzsche guy you hate so much? I’ve got news for you….) Actually,

Nearly all people I have ever met in this western society in which I live would agree to the general proposition that we need this life of practical romance… (3)

Okay then.

Chesterton goes on for a while about how he doesn’t write anything unless he sincerely believes it and NEVER relies on puns to patch up holes in his logic, yada yada yada.

And he goes on to say that he is in fact the ridiculous figure in his book because the truths he claimed to have “discovered” were actually the traditions of Christianity all the time.

Excuse, me, of “civilized religion.” (5)

Chesterton writes as if this were delightfully unexpected, but it seems kind of intuitive to me. After all, we’re all very influenced by the ideas and principles we grew up with. So no wonder when we actually start exploring and discussing that they've become part of our core philosophy even without us realizing.

Not all people keep their childhood/cultural values. When people have an experience that causes them to question those values, they can often reject the bad ideas that had become part of their subconscious.

Summing up, Chesterton states that,

If anyone is entertained by learning how…the accidents of politics or the pains of youth came together in a certain order to produce a certain conviction of Christian orthodoxy, he may…read this book. (5)

At this point I’m set in for hearing about the mental journey Chesterton took to arrive at the conviction that Christian beliefs are true. I’m interested to hear how these beliefs match up with reality and give Chesterton the answers he was looking for. How did he go from being skeptical about them to accepting them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As if. Chesterton doesn’t give any craps about explaining how his theology (essentially the Apostles’ Creed) lines up with reality. Nah. You’ve just gotta start with the assumption that the Apostle’s Creed contains all the truth, and nevermind how people wrote the Apostle’s Creed.

These essays are concerned only to discuss the actual fact that the central Christian theology (sufficiently summarized in the Apostle’s Creed) is the best root of energy and sound ethics. (5)

I feel pretty sorry for the Nicene Creed at this point, because it predates the Apostle’s Creed by a good 60 years, and Chesterton totally snubs it. But he does get meta textual and amend,

“the Apostle’s Creed, as understood by everybody calling himself Christian until a very short time ago and the general historic conduct of those who held such a creed.” (5)

You know, I’m not even going to point out what’s wrong with that statement. Chesterton does my work for me sometimes.

So you can read the closing paragraphs of chapter one two ways. One, is that Chesterton just wanted to discuss the good stuff in the Apostle’s Creed without getting into a long discussion of councils and texts and translations and really boring shit.

The other is that he takes a very shallow approach to Christian thought and demands that his readers agree that all Christians for all time believed exactly the same things he did. Choose your own adventure.