Amy and I are reading the spiritual autobiography of GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, together this March.
Chapter 1 is titled "In defense of everything else" and it's pretty short. A few quotations will serve to give you a picture of what Chesterton had in mind when he wrote this book.
I have attempted in a vague and personal way, in a set of mental pictures rather than in a series of deductions, to state the philosophy in which I have come to believe.
I wish to set forth my faith as particularly answering this double spiritual need, the need for that mixture of the familiar and the unfamiliar which Christendom has rightly named romance.
…the general proposition that we need this life of practical romance; the combination of something that is strange with something that is secure.
One searches for truth, but it may be that one pursues instinctively the more extraordinary truths.
It recounts my elephantine adventures in pursuit of the obvious.
I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.
These essays are concerned only to discuss the actual fact that the central Christian theology (sufficiently summarised in the Apostles’ Creed) is the best root of energy and sound ethics.
This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slovenly autobiography.
From this chapter, it is apparent to me that this book will have something in common with CS Lewis’s Surprised by Joy. It is written in a style that does not necessarily fit with my extremely analytical mind, and it contains some lovely big words that will content my mind while they challenge my brain. Just what I need to stretch me!
[Image source koorong.com.]
Thursday 5 March 2009
In defense of everything else
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sharon,
I have to admit that chapter two made me feel that I've bitten off more than I can chew! His use of madness as a starting point was confusing, although I think I understand it better now, having re-read portions. I have the distinct impression that much of the book would make better sense if I lived in 1910. It remains a classic book, but it also seems very much of its day.
I look forward to your analytic mind guiding me through! This is really fun!
Amy,
Can you tell I read through the first two chapters on Sunday and have been mulling over my posts on them ever since? I underlined a lot of stuff that I have re-read several times as well. I'm in exactly the same mildly puzzled situation as you, working through this book!
~ Sharon
Post a Comment