Author: Al
Posted: 2006-08-14 08:47:52
|
There's this weird effort that I have noticed in the world today to write off G.K. Chesterton as “Kind of like Lewis.” I have seen many commentators and apologists do it lately. On CCEL even though they list Orthodoxy as recommended reading, they slight Chesterton as being similar to Lewis.
I like Lewis too, so do not mistake what I am about to say for an attack on him. I owe most of the progress that I have made as a Christian in the past seven years or so to him. Most Christians alive today owe him a great debt whether they realize it or not. Lewis has left a mark on Christianity that may one day be compared to Luther or Aquinas.
But the thing is, that Chesterton is a very different writer than Lewis. Lewis, even though he loved poetry, was unrelentingly rational. Chesterton not only loved poetry, but was a walking poem. His writings were esoteric and quirky to the point that no man should ever confuse them for those of Lewis. I think that many Christians run from esoteric styles these days. If I were to guess, I would blame it on the tendency of the rest of the world to polarize between rationalists and spiritualists. It seems that we equate esoteric with spiritual.
If we take the hyperbole that rationalists believe in nothing, while the spiritualists believe in everything, then Christianity is more like rationalism than anything else. We really only believe in one thing. It is unseemly to be lumped in with those who fall for every charlatans scam. This may help explain why Lewis is so much more popular, and why little credit is given to Chesterton's style.
We are at the cusp of another modulation in the world mindset. Believe it or not, for the past sixty years, the world has been as rationalistic as it has ever been. There have been other periods like this, and they have always been followed by spiritualistic periods. Civilization regularly goes from believing nothing, to believing everything. We are on the cusp of one of these changes. I think that people feel it, even if they are not cognizant of it, and they are afraid of it.
When it comes right down to it, atheism does not do much damage to Christianity. Rampant spiritualism is not only much harder to combat, but is prone to tearing off chunks of our religion and calling them its own. Rampant spiritualism gives us the marginalized god of Shaw. It takes all of the happiness and good feelings with none of the responsibility. Atheism takes much of the responsibility, with none of the good feelings. It is obviously easier to get someone to accept good news than responsibility.
If that is not enough, here is another crucial difference. Far and away, Lewis tended to write for other Christians, while Chesterton wrote for everyone. Chesterton took on the philosophies of other men, and did so to their faces. Lewis wrote to refine and sharpen the Christian Philosophy. His writings were more along the lines of what you should do as a Christian and Chesterton wrote more along the lines of what you should do as a human.
This has a couple of immediate effects. First, I think Chesterton to be far more likely to reach out and pull people into the faith. Second, Chesterton's writings become dated far more quickly. You almost have to be a student of history to appreciate what he was saying. Much of it is universal, in that he is dealing with ideas that have always existed, and will always exist, but the context is specific to the first thirty years or so of the twentieth century.
G.K. did take on the Christian philosophies that he considered damaging. Perhaps I have picked up a little too much disdain for Puritanism from him. I think that my Wesleyan outlook may have predisposed me to it. This is really the only area of my faith that I feel comfortable criticizing.
Here is another difference, which fittingly enough, is quite esoteric. Given the choice between the two, I would far rather have a beer with Chesterton. He was a jovial and pleasantly forgetful and quirky man. Lewis was severe and far too stern for me to have enjoyed his presence. I do not think that I could have tolerated being around such a man actually. I owe him a great deal, but I would be trepidatious indeed if I ever had to meet him.
So this is why I will try to follow in the footsteps of Chesterton. I would like the honor of fighting the popular opinion of the heathens, and the solace of knowing that my works will be more quickly forgotten. |
|
