Orthodoxy

Despite being a Christian, and despite even agreeing with some of Chesteron's points, I found this very unpersuasive and disorganized as a rational argument.

I am speaking literally when I say that this is a fantastic book. I don’t mean that it is just a well-written book, but that it is a book that deals with fantasy and not literalism. G.K. Chesterton’s intentions (I believe) in writing this book was not to delineate a clean argument for the supremacy of Christianity, but the superiority of the life experienced by a sincere Christian. These are by no means the same thing.

The majority of negative reviews on this site seem to originate from readers expecting a realist statue from an impressionist painter. If what you want is a front-door visitation of logic, do not read this book. Only read this book if you are leaving the backdoor of imagination open for a provocateur like Chesterton.
Thankfully, I had picked up this book already knowing that G.K. Chesterton’s style and rhetoric was more Oscar Wilde than C.S. Lewis.

The best part of this book begins in Chapter 4’s “The ethics of fairyland”. This starts the most potent and worthwhile of Chesterton’s understandings about Christianity. Namely, that only in Christianity can a human truly and fully embrace all aspects (even the seemingly contradictory aspects) of living experience under one cohesive worldview. On many pages you will find some of the most exemplary psychological and spiritual insights about existential cravings inside of man to parallel anything from a Heidegger or a Jung. Any Jungians would especially appreciate the respect that Chesterton holds for mythology and fairytale. If you are at all intrigued by the multiplicity of “oxymorons” of the “Upside Kingdom” known as Christianity... you will be delighted with this book.

That being said, I do wish to make any reader aware of a few shortcomings in this marvelous piece of work.

1) Chesterton will often, and I do mean often, make bold accusations and arguments against popular philosophies and thinkers like Nietzche, Darwin, Huxley, and more. The criticisms that Chesterton makes are sincere… but not always complete. There is more than one straw man erected by Chesterton in the throes of his passion. He should not be entirely faulted for this. Critics who claim “Chesterton didn’t understand Nietzche” are silly to say so. Of course he does not understand Nietzsche- who is the person that dares to say that he understands Nietzsche?

My point is to not be discouraged from reading these authors simply because Chesterton makes confident-sounding arguments against some of his understanding of some of their works. Should you feel inclined to peruse a Brave New World or Anti-Christ, you will most definitely be enriched by it.

2) Chesterton lays an impressive foundation for the relationship between Biblical thought and the emergence of Western culture and democracy. It is here that I warn the reader from making synonyms out of these things. It is true that the Western world would not exist if not for the guiding hand of Biblical thought. But in my estimation, the author is drawing a dangerous line for others to toe when he equates democracy with being inherently Christian. Many have used similar lines of argument to make their politics the substitute of their religion (and vice verse), when in reality Christianity stands far outside of whatever political form is in vogue in any nation of any era. Since he writes beautifully about the tension between the disposition of optimists and pessimists, it is fair for the reader to know he is naturally the accepting optimist. Yet, perhaps, it is because I am more of a pessimist that I am making this disclaimer at all. (This will make more sense when you read the book)

As a final statement I want to compliment Chesterton on his decision to remain a devoted fanatic to the global Church in Orthodoxy. Many modern apologists, writers, preachers, and believers have been all too ready to unbind themselves from the established Church. It is an understandable action, but ultimately a faithless one. It may be cleaner to cut ties with the Church, but it is certainly not more courageous. For this decision alone, Chesterton wins my admiration and respect. He himself put it best when stating, “The devotee is entirely free to criticize; the fanatic can safely be a sceptic. Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.”

Thanks G.K. for being both bound and wide-eyed.