The Year of Chesterton

Suppose I said (as I do say) that every government ought to be checked by an opposition; suppose I said (as I do not say) that free international exchange is demonstrably better than all this economic nationalism. Suppose I said that recognised majority rule is better than random minority rule; suppose I said that Democracy as a failure is better than Dictatorship as a success. I could say all this, and much more, and remain a quite ordinary and orthodox member of the ancient Church. But I could not say it, over a great part of the modern world, without being punished by the modern State. Rome with its religious authority would not silence me. But Fascism with its secular authority would silence me. Bolshevism with its secular authority would silence me. Hitlerism with its secular authority would silence me. When I began to live and (alas) to write, all the other Liberals had inherited a huge legend that all persecution had come from the Church... I appeal to all my fellow-Liberals to admit that the facts have flatly contradicted this idea.

G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows, 1935

Chesterton wrote this before WWII and the Cold War. He was more right than he knew. It's quite amusing that these tired and incorrect arguments still get used by new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They posit that religion in world history is responsible for the most horrible atrocities.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also note that more evil has been done by admittedly secular, atheist governments than religious ones. Besides, a government will usually act on behalf of its worldview.

Secular, atheistic governments that don't value human life will not hesitate to destroy life (see: USSR or Nazi Germany). Radical Islamic governments (who read the Qu'ran accurately, I presume) who really view non-Muslims as infidels, are encouraged to spread Islam by the sword as supported by their holy scriptures. But when a supposedly Christian government does such atrocities, it is acting contra to it's worldview. It possesses a worldview that is in contradiction with unjust war, for instance. The core of the worldview is the concern, and Chesterton is right to point the inconsistencies of this old argument. He's right about a great many things.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you probably have noticed that I am fond of reading G.K. Chesterton. What you might not realize is that I didn't read a single paragraph of his until 2009. April of 2009 to be more precise. Since then, I've read several of his works, both fiction and non-fiction. That list includes: Orthodoxy, (many of) The Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napolean of Notting Hill, Manalive, The Everlasting Man, and The Well and the Shallows.

I love his prose, his use of logic, his wit, and grand themes. Not many write or think like he does anymore. As such, I commit myself to more reading of Chesterton as a tonic against much of the shallow Christian literature of the day. Already purchased and waiting for reading: Heretics, The Flying Inn, biographies of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis, The Ball and the Cross, and many more I can't think of right now.

I encourage you to join me in this adventure. Even if you vehemently disagree, you will be entertained. My first suggestion for non-fiction: Orthodoxy- a compelling approach to the beauty and truth of Christianity. My first suggestion for fiction: The Man Who Was Thursday- a weird but quick and fun read sure to whet the appetite.