Orthodoxy

Chesterton believes that the position that attempts to move away from and suppress orthodoxy is one that is destined to be boring and closed in on itself. Orthodoxy, by contrast, is a romantic view of the world. While discussing the concept of miracles, he writes, “For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them” (187). Materialism convinces one not only that miracles do not occur but also that they cannot occur. This itself requires an enormous amount of faith, for it is something that cannot be proven, and it discourages human imagination by making the cosmos a dull, rote machine. He thinks that if the ultimate goal is for human beings to gain total power over nature, it is a curious thing that the miracle—just such a power—should be so denigrated.

The question of humanity’s liberation, raised by asking questions about materialism and revolution, are made prominent when the conversation moves specifically to a comparison between the religions of Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism is the best example because it is a prevalent exemplar of a pantheistic or immanentist philosophy of the world. Many look at religion and see different forms of practice and similar claims of truth. Chesterton proclaims that this is backward: “Religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach” (190). When it comes to Buddhism and Christianity, they are in some agreement about the predicament that humanity is currently suffering under, but they have wholly opposite ways of answering the questions that this problem raises.

For Buddhism, the answers lie within, but for Christianity the answers lie without. This itself raises the distinction between a pantheistic, universal personality and identity and the notion that creation is distinct from the creator. This is the difference between the immanent and the transcendent. Chesterton explains that by “insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God transcends man, man has transcended himself” (197). Christianity has always insisted on the reality of human community, even among those who would cut themselves off from the world, such as in the life of the monk.

This communal insistence and the conviction that love of others is central is also related to the Christian belief that human existence is a story and has a narrative. Rather than viewing history in a fatalistic mode, history is viewed as the working out of divine providence through the agency of human free will. It is an idealized perspective that unites conceptions of a divine ruler and the desire to exert free will in one’s own life. This conviction allows others true agency, contributing to Chesterton’s insistence that human history is romantic.

Drawing the narrative to a close, Chesterton grapples with strong objections. The greatest objection is that it should be quite easy, and perhaps desirable, to take all that Christianity has to say about truth and human living and leave behind the religious teachings that center ideas about sin, grace, and atonement.

Three answers arise in answer to this objection, and Chesterton thinks that there are rational and intellectually satisfying answers if one is willing to look. The first objection to Christianity is that human beings really are just complex animals, and so they have no need of religion at their core. The second is that religion only begins thanks to fear, ignorance, and superstition. The third is that the presence of religious fanatics and priests makes the world a worse place and continually prove to be the source of pain, sadness, and scrupulosity. Chesterton dismantles these arguments and shows how each one, in his mind, is simply not true.

Thinking the reader may not yet be content, Chesterton offers more objections. First, the figure of Jesus seems to be quite unappealing to the modern man. Second, Christianity has only lasted as long as it has because it flourished in the dark ages of European history. Finally, all those who practice religion are weak and impractical. Again, Chesterton resists and summarizes by stating that “the sceptic was quite right to go by the facts, only he had not looked at the facts” (217). The truth to him is that Christianity has acted as a safeguard and teacher, and this has been a good thing societally and historically.

Even more, the Church has—in Chesterton’s estimation—been proven to be the kind of thing that tells the truth, and so for this fact alone, it should be given serious consideration. Finally, he gives credit to the feeling that Christianity is the source of so much joy. Anything else, he thinks, leaves humanity cold and desperate: “When the pagan looks at the very core of the cosmos he is struck cold. Behind the gods, who are merely despotic, sit the fates, who are deadly. Nay, the fates are worse than deadly; they are dead” (231). Christians, by contrast, are able to view the chaos, paradox, and mystery of the world and still find great joy in it all.