Superb commentary by Cosh on United Church Minister

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-the-heretical-minister-to-help-her-flock-evolve-out-of-the-need-for-church

What chills me is his referring to Satanist literature.  My husband read this article out loud to me over breakfast.  When it began with something about atheism, I said to him, this is not atheism, this is Gnosticism, and so since Gnosticism elevates Satan, I am not surprised to have the atheist critique finishing with a comment on Satanism.  Still it is interesting.

Ambiguity / Definitions / Chesterton

"And having discovered that opportunism does fail, I have been induced to look at it more largely, and in consequence to see that it must fail.  I perceive that it is far more practical to begin at the beginning and discuss theories.  I see that the men who killed each other about the orthodoxy of the Homoousion were far more sensible than the people who are quarreling about the Education Act.  For the Christian dogmatists were trying to establish a reign of holiness, and trying to get defined, first of all, what was really holy.  But our modern educationists are trying to bring about a religious liberty without attempting to settle what is religion or what is liberty.  If the old priests forced a statement on mankind, at least they previously took some trouble to make it lucid.  It has been left for the modern mobs of Anglicans and Noncoformists to persecute for a doctrine without even stating it."

(Chesterton.  "Hertics".  Introductory Remarks.)

We see that Chesterton is still laboring with the concept and need for definitions.  It would be the theme of the introductory remarks.

Chesterton / Heretics 1 / Definitions

Ok, as time permits, I do want to re-read G.K. Chesterton, quote him some and ponder what he is saying.

--I rarely re-read books (except for the basics) and re-watch movies, but Chesterton gave me such great belly laughs along with good insights, all in his inimitable fantastic English style, that I consider him worth a second look.  The fact that he is deconstructing 19th century philosophy and evil things such as Eugenics, Marxism and so on, of course, factors hugely, here.

So, let's put some more work into it.

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox."  In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic.  It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics.  He was orthodox.  He had no pride in having rebelled against them;  they had rebelled against him.  The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray.  The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right.  If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man;  he was a church.  He was the center of the universe;  it was round him that the stars swung.  All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical.  But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it.  He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause.  The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong;  it practically means being clear-headed and courageous.  The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right;  it practically means being wrong.  All this can mean one thing, and one thing only.  It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right.  For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical.  The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy.  The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, what-ever else he is, at least he is orthodox.  

(Heretics, introductory comments.)

This opening already gives me such pleasure, that I, for once, am interested in "process" skills.  What did he do here?

He is giving the most basic of all introductions, an exploration of what terms mean, or used to mean.  I remember beginning essays that way in High School.  As he does in many places, he shows how things have been turned upside down.  It always makes you wonder how he can be seemingly the only person who has figured this out or can really show it clearly.

The matter in fact is so preposterous, that one must practically slap one's forehead with the goofy-ness of it all. A man used to be proud of being right and stake his life on it.  Now a man is proud of being "heretical", and does not seem to care whether he is right or wrong, as long as he is dynamiting something.

Of course, it entertains, how Chesterton moves from the kingdoms of the world, the state, the king, the decorous, to the howling wilderness, to the center of the universe, and the swinging stars.  It is beautiful and exciting.  We are with the rebel and his cause.  Indeed, there are weighty matters for which one may stand up and fight.

Contrast this person with the modern "heretic", who is basically looking for applause, or maybe chicks, or who knows what, for being a bad boy. He really looks shabby and tawdry by comparison, in the end. You want to dynamite but for what purpose?  Does it matter if you are right or wrong?

This is really, really good stuff.

For example, when we talk about Luther, we see that he was labeled a "heretic" and excommunicated by the Roman church.  Hence the movement was termed "Lutheran", to signify its heretical-ness.  But the objective of Luther and every Lutheran has ever only been to be "orthodox" and "catholic."  He stood and could do no other.  The people moved with him because he was right.  The time was right.  And a movement born in the monastery and the university resonated with the famous average citizen.   The stars swung around him.  And a heresy it was not that spread like wild-fire.

So much for today.

"Often said silly things, like Plato"

We have picked up a new book, now that we have put The Republic behind us.  It is a G.K. Chesterton and it is this one:



It cost me $18.00 from Amazon.ca, which ships to my house within several days and at no extra cost.  This is a dangerous thing.  One can convince oneself quite quickly to buy another book, and have it in one's lap in no time flat...  But Chesterton has been on my want-to-read-list, for quite some time.  After reading several volumes by Chesterton on the I-Pad while exercising (What I saw in America;  Eugenics and other Evils;  On George Bernhard Shaw) -- I have indulged in a hard copy which one can under-line in, take to sofa or bed, and generally make a decent mess of.  As I have a day time job, I have less time to read.  It will take several weeks to get through the 400 pages. We are already into the chapter on H.G. Wells (after suffering through a very long and boring introduction by a certain David Dooley).

It is a little frightening to find that I know so little about the men Chesterton speaks of, but this is just the point.  I want to know more about what happened intellectually in the 19th century and the turn of the century.  As a culture we seem to have a blind spot there, perhaps because everything before radio or WW I might as well be antiquity.  What is the difference to us between Plato and 400 B.C. or the 19th century?  They are all just various Wikipedia entries.

To make a quick link to Plato, let's begin with a quote that involves Plato and Rudyard Kipling.  Chesterton seems to value courage very highly, as we all do.  To stand against heresy takes courage.  Chesterton makes the point that as Europe has become more militarized, the average citizen has become less brave.  Something in Kipling and his view on military matters prompted this generalization.



"Now, the message of Rudyard Kipling, that upon which he has really concentrated, is the only thing worth worrying about in him or in any other man.  He has often written bad poetry, like Wordsworth.  He has often said silly things, like Plato.  He has often given way to mere political hysteria, like Gladstone.  But no one can reasonably doubt that he means steadily and sincerely to say something, and the only serious question is, what is hat which he has tried to say?  Perhaps the best way of stating this fairly will be to begin with that element which has been most insisted by himself and by his opponents--I mean his interest in militarism.  But when we are seeking for the real merits of a man it is unwise to go to his enemies, and much more foolish to go to himself.

Now, Mr. Kipling is certainly wrong in his worship of militarism, but his opponents are, generally speaking, quite as wrong as he.  The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike.  The evil of militarism is that it show most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable.  The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines... All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man;  but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the fantastic perfection of the arms.  Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome, and it demonstrated the decadence of Prussia." (p. 57)

--This is so very interesting, but about Rudyard Kipling I only know that he wrote the "Jungle Book".  About Prussia I know a lot more, having descended on one side of the family from Prussians. One of my grandmothers even saw a Kaiser Wilhelm.  I am afraid that the Prussians have not left a good impressions on Chesterton.  It will be interesting to see what else he has to say about them.