G.K. Chesterton and the Problem with Orthodoxy
In G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, he outlines his philosophical journey to Christianity and argues for a religion based in paradox. He essentially says, it is only because the modern world is standing on its head that the Christian worldview seems upside-down.
Chesterton points out how he was like a man who set out from England to discover new lands, and after his long voyage, he arrived on the shores of the New World where he planted the British flag. Only to discover, he was back on the shores of England. That was the philosophical journey Chesterton took to arrive at Orthodoxy.
One of the most striking things in the book, is his insistence that Christianity is an impossible philosophy which balances opposites in a manner that could lead to catastrophe at any moment.
Now, a paradox is not a contradiction. A contradiction is two opposites which cannot be rectified, producing a logical impossibility. But a paradox, only appears to be a contradiction at first glance. Upon further inspection, a paradox shows the compatibility of two things the observer thought were logically incompatible.
For the modern person, the post-modern person, the seemingly logical contradictions of Christianity are too much for the rational and scientific mind to handle. Everything about Christianity seems to fall to rational criticism, because on the face of the doctrines, there are competing ideas which must be contradictions. But they are actually paradoxes.
Chesterton highlights this in many ways. One way is how the Church reveres both the meekness of the Saint and the courage of the Crusader. The Saint is humble, pacifistic, unassuming, and often lives a solitary life. Although as Chesterton points out, even the monks live in a monastery which makes the solitary life lived for God into a brotherhood and community — just another example of the apparent logical incompatibility present in Orthodoxy.
On the other hand, the Crusader is bold, assertive, aggressive, and even willing to fight to his death. How could Christianity revere these two opposites at the same time? Clearly one or the other must be the proper way to live. However, to Chesterton, that delicate balancing act between opposites is what has made the Church stand upright for two thousand years. And that reconciliation of opposites is what drew him to Christianity as a philosophical system.
Sometimes, at one point in history one extreme is needed, and at a different time the opposite extreme is needed. These opposites can co-exist. To Chesterton, it is miraculous that the Church has managed to keep its opposite parts balancing over the history of Christianity, and to him that balancing act alone stands as a proof of the reasonableness of Christianity’s claims.
As Chesterton says, the fact the Church still stands after all its catastrophes is evidence enough that the Church is not a merely human enterprise, but that something supernatural is at work. He finds it wise to allow the aforementioned extremes to manifest themselves fully, and thinks there is no other way to make sense of the world. Plus, he notes that the true religion would have to incorporate both extremes of the Saint and Crusader, among other extremes.
Blaise Pascal argues that the glory and evil of man are both so apparent, whatever the true religion is, it would have to incorporate both of these capabilities of man into the religion’s philosophy. And, the true religion must then explain why these two astonishing, and seemingly contradictory possibilities, both exist in humankind.
To Chesterton, the art of Orthodoxy, and the proof it is true, is in claims such as God is both a judge and merciful. The religion is full of claims which seem contradictory, but are not, because they are paradoxes.
A lot of modern people cannot reconcile the apparent logical contradictions in Christianity, because modern people think they are logical contradictions. But Chesterton thinks, the logical solution to the problems of how to live life and what the nature of reality is, are to be found in the reconciliation of fully expressed opposites — such as mercy and justice. They both have to exist fully to make the big picture coherent. One side can’t win over the other — instead, the opposites balance to create something greater.
He notes how many historical arguments over Church doctrine are attempts, in the big picture, to balance opposites. Then to arrive at a solution, which seems supernaturally inspired at the least. Even the most basic — which are the most complex — questions of Christian doctrine have this impossible balancing of opposites. And those apparent contradictions in Christianity, are exactly what many modern people turn away from at first glance:
How can Christ be both man and God? How can the Trinity be one and three? How can we have original sin and be worthy of eternal life? Why would God be killed by us, and resurrect himself to save us? Why did Christ ask the Father: ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ Aren’t they the same person?
Christ himself even gives us contradictory ideas in the New Testament, as Peter Kreeft notes. For those who want justice, blessed are the merciful. For those who want lust, blessed are the pure in heart. For those who want acceptance, blessed are the persecuted. And for those who want life, the cross is offered to carry uphill. These statements are not logical contradictions. They only appear to be at first glance. These solutions are solutions, but not the solutions we expected.
They are infinite mysteries. And while some of the solutions might begin with the answer of love, they are problems which rational thinking cannot fully solve. To make any sense of them, they require a mode of cognition — if it can even be called that, which transcends and is above reason. The divine mysteries require faith. These solutions only make sense in practice, not so much in theory. They are paradoxes, and the only way to balance these competing claims, is through faith which leads to action and then the theory makes sense in retrospect.
Chesterton points out the inherent sanity in allowing such extremes of human thinking, feeling, and action, to all exist together within the philosophical system of Orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean values are subjective, there are things which are clearly wrong. But it does mean that humans are free to live to the fullest, within the box of Orthodoxy. Otherwise, if you try and cut off the extreme you personally do not like, you do not allow your brothers and sisters to be free in the Spirit — which is what you want for yourself too.
Modern people may not like being put in an ethical box, but a game cannot exist without rules. There is an objective reality, but within those rules there can be variation. No one would play chess if you could make any move you wanted. But the patient player and the fast player can both express their opposite nature within the rules of the game. Another aspect of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, which modern people will take offense to, are his ideas around the supposed commonalities between religious traditions.
Essentially, he is of the opinion that the common sentiment: all religions are fundamentally saying the same thing — cannot be more mistaken. In the modern West, the post-modern West, there is an insistence that as long as you are a good person nothing else matters. It is noteworthy, that the definition of a good person is the Christian vision of ethics which did not exist before Christ.
However, Chesterton points to paintings of enlightened Buddhist Sages, who have absent eyes, and contrasts that with the wide-awake eyes of the Christian Saint. Chesterton thinks other religions look inward, and Christianity looks outward. Christianity is active in the world.
And Chesterton notes Christian nations are more politically active. He says Buddhist nations have never overthrown a tyrant, while Christian nations look outside of themselves and attempt to make the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, which often means having democratic systems and replacing leaders.
(It also has a leader, Christ, who claimed to be the Son of Man from the vision of the prophet Daniel. The fact Christ affirmed he was the God of Israel, during his trial with the Pharisees, is something the modern person overlooks entirely when claiming Christ was a great moral teacher and nothing more. It is quite a statement, to claim to be God, and modernity attempts to make Christ only a man who taught ethics.)
Now, Chesterton was writing before Vatican II, which moves beyond the traditional idea that there is no salvation outside of the Church. And that God’s grace is available to those who may have never even heard of Christ. Not to mention, insists there are rays of divine truth in other religions. Still, these ideas about Orthodoxy’s uniqueness are ideas which modern people are not used to.
That is the entire problem with Orthodoxy. Chesterton presents many ideas which modern people would either find logically inconsistent, or offensive. Yet Chesterton argues, these are paradoxes — a balancing act of holding opposites together to create a superordinate way of looking at life — such as God becoming incarnate as a man. Chesterton doesn’t think there is any way around Orthodoxy.
In these paradoxes of Christianity, Chesterton found a way to live life to the fullest and get above reason with faith. Even for an intellectual like Chesterton, reason will only get you so far. It takes faith to allow opposites to co-exist in a way a person cannot fully understand. The evidence for the legitimacy of those opposites co-existing, of that project of Christianity, is experiential and not rational. It is proven after faith is acted on, and then reason can explain it.
One can look to the life of the individual believer, Chesterton is a good example, or one can look to the two thousand year-old Church, or one can even look to the quality of life in Christian nations. All of these experiential examples are empirical evidence that the Christian project of allowing opposites to flourish, works.
These ideas of Orthodoxy go against the modern orthodoxy that the only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes, and one must be nice to others despite that. Nice, is a low-order Christian ethic. But there must be rules, moral absolutes, for the game of life to exist. Even choosing one action over another, requires a hierarchy of values, no matter how flawed that hierarchy may be. So even people who say there are no rules to the game, act as if there are.
For these reasons, people are starting to feel the modern philosophical project has failed. Because the modern orthodoxy cannot ground values in anything objective. That only leads to confusion on an individual and societal level. People feel lost and without meaning. Even though they still act out many of the Christian presuppositions about how to life live, without knowing they are.
The paradoxes of Christianity, which Chesterton recognized a century ago, seem more appealing to many people now than the spiritual vacuum of the modern philosophical orthodoxy. Because the rules of the game give the game meaning. And the rules are wide enough to allow opposites to co-exist, without sacrificing the structure of the game itself, by eliminating all rules.
In this manner, Chesterton recognized the viability of Christian philosophy — balancing opposites through paradox. He was ahead by a century in anticipating the failure of the modern philosophical orthodoxy. But the problem of even talking about whether or not he was right, is the problem of Orthodoxy.
There is a mass exodus from Orthodoxy in older generations. But there is an increasing number of young people who are rediscovering where their culture left from. Because the modern philosophical orthodoxy isn’t meaningful enough to sustain one through life. The 21st century is leaving Britain only to plant the British flag on the same shores it left from.
As Chesterton said, the Church has died many times, but we follow one who knows the way out of the grave. Maybe the real problem with Orthodoxy — is that it just won’t die. It resurrects itself.
***
Dan Sherven is the author of three books: Light and Dark, the #1 Amazon Bestseller Classified: Off the Beat ‘N Path and Live to the Point of Tears. He holds a Bachelors of Philosophy and a Bachelors of Journalism. Sherven currently writes for Word on Fire, The Symbolic World, the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Christian Courier, Luther College, and the Archdiocese of Regina.
Here, you can find his work.
