Search for topics or resources
Enter your search below and hit enter or click the search icon.
March 7th, 2010 | 4 min read
I have always thought that every academicâor wannabe, like meâought have one or two hypotheses that are held very loosely, are somewhat defensible but impossible to prove, and just fringe enough to make academic parties interesting.
One such hypothesis that I have occasionally advanced is that G.K. Chestertonâs Orthodoxy is the most important work of the twenty-first century, even though it was written in the twentieth.
Though Chesterton attained more fame during his life than C.S. Lewisâhe was greeted by massive crowds on his trips around the worldâby the beginning of World War II his position as chief apologist and defender of the faith had been taken over by Lewis. In particular, Chestertonâs influence on American evangelicalism has been relatively non-existent compared to Lewisâs.
And no wonder: Lewisâs Mere Christianity, which has influenced numerous evangelical leaders over the past few decades, is a masterfully written apologetic. The discovery of Lewis helped many evangelicals in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s realize the importance of having a faith that was as intellectual as it was spiritual.
Yet the situation within evangelicalism (and without) has now changed, and Mere Christianity is an apologetic suited to its time. While evangelicals have made strides in recovering the life of the mind, it is now en vogue to criticize evangelical Christianity as too propositional. The new generation of post-modern evangelicals is moved more by the story of Christianity than its ideas, and more prone to appeal to the imagination than the intellect.
Such critics would do well to consider Orthodoxy.
Though it was written just over 100 years ago, Chestertonâs finest work is still relevant. In a First Thingsâ article, Ralph Wood writes:
Indeed, we might say that the last century belongs to Chestertonâfor in that now one-hundred-year-old book, Orthodoxy, he remarkably prophesied the ailments of both modernism and postmodernism, while adeptly commending Christianity as their double cure.
Woodâs article highlights Chestertonâs criticism of the âtwin insanities of hyper-rationalism and hyper-emotivism,â and Chestertonâs response to those insanities (imagination and the âDoctrine of Conditional Joyâ). But while his analysis of Chestertonâs argument is exactly right, his treatment neglects Chestertonâs method. Chestertonâs poetic-prose articulates a vision of Christianity that is as artistic as it is analytic, and as such is a more effective antidote to the prevailing post-modern sensibilities than any other book I have found.
Before he considers the tenets of Christian theology, Chesterton defends four propositions: âI felt in my bones, first, that the world does not explain itself . . . The thing is magic, true or false. Second, I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have some one to mean it . . . Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons. Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them.â
It is somewhat misleading to call these ideas propositions for Chesterton, or evenideas. Rather, he describes them as the âultimate attitudes toward life, the soils for the seeds of doctrine.â Earlier, he speaks of the âsentiments of elf-land.â
Chestertonâs case for this ethic is surprisingly poeticâone might even call it artistic. He rejects sociology or even the principles of natural law and instead appeals to childâs experience of fairy stories as his justification. Yet beneath the apparent triviality is a surprisingly sophisticated aim (this dynamic frequently occurs in Chesterton): Chesterton understands that persuasion is as much sentimental as it is rational. By articulating the âEthics of Elfland,â he lays the poetic foundation for his defense of Christianity, which will come in the following chapters. Chesterton wants to convince your mindâbut he wants to woo your heart as well.
Chestertonâs Orthodoxy, then, differs from Lewisâ Mere Christianity precisely in its attempt to ground Christianity not in the propositions of natural law, but in the elemental human and artistic experiences that we begin to neglect as we grow old. It is an attempt, dare I say, to defend and engender a faith that exudes wonder and astonishment at the mystery of reality. But Chesterton had told us as much at the beginning. Orthodoxy is not a âseries of deductions,â as he says at the outset, but an attempt âin a vague and personal way, in a set of mental pictures, to state the philosophy in which [he has] come to believe.â
It is this approach that I would argue is perfectly suited for our post-modern age. Chesterton is the anti-Nietscheâa poet-philosopher who understands that unless truth exists, the enterprises of art and beauty are rendered meaningless. Whatâs more, his method is consistent with his argument: he artistically defends the existence of the truth and grounds Christianity in the pre-rational experience of story without jeopardizing truthâs existence or fallaciously opposing reason and emotion.
In sum, though Orthodoxy has only recently turned 100 years old, it remains the single most effective articulation of a Christianity that is intellectually robust, artistically engaged, spiritually sensitive, and historically grounded that I have yet read.
[Note: This is a slightly revised version of what I posted previously at Evangelical Outpost.]
Matthew Lee Anderson is an Associate Professor of Ethics and Theology in Baylor University's Honors College. He has a D.Phil. in Christian Ethics from Oxford University, and is a Perpetual Member of Biola University's Torrey Honors College. In 2005, he founded Mere Orthodoxy.