On Reading Chesterton
Because I want to be an expert on detective fiction, I am reading the greats. Right now I'm entranced by Father Brown stories by G.K. Chesterton.
Folks who think they know Chesterton/Father Brown (or Doyle/Holmes) from watching TV depictions of them are mistaken. You really have to read the originals.
Father Brown stories are wonderful. It's hard to stop. However, I've run across something odd. Chesterton takes pot shots at Presbyterians.
Snide remarks about why pagan Scots turned to another form of quasi-paganism like Calvinism. Puritan put-downs. Here's an example from "The Hammer of God."
I wondered what that was up, so did some research. Here's a good essay.
https://reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n6/ant_v1n6_Chesterton.html
The essence of Chesterton's view seem to me to be:
1. He converted to Catholicism, and cognitive dissonance theory says he would be its strongest defender.
2. He (and other Catholics) conflate all Protestants.
3. He (and other Catholics) say the church came first and then the Bible, so we can't put Scripture before the Bible; the church created the Bible. Well, lots of problems there. Most of the Bible was written before the church even showed up (the Old Testament). The church of the first two centuries was not the church of Roman Catholicism, either. No pope, no veneration of saints, no celibacy required.
4. The "sins" of the Catholic church are very hard for Protestants to swallow. Sure, we have plenty of our own, but it's easy, especially now, to see the systemic and theological problems in Catholicism. Chesterton claimed that Protestants do not believe their own doctrine. I think we might say that Catholics believe theirs too much.
5. Finally, despite enjoying his writing, I have found some of his theological and apologetic writing too clever by half. Witty, very British, lots of paradoxes that get me thinking but also finding them unnecessary. I admit to being too prosaic.
Folks who think they know Chesterton/Father Brown (or Doyle/Holmes) from watching TV depictions of them are mistaken. You really have to read the originals.
Father Brown stories are wonderful. It's hard to stop. However, I've run across something odd. Chesterton takes pot shots at Presbyterians.
Snide remarks about why pagan Scots turned to another form of quasi-paganism like Calvinism. Puritan put-downs. Here's an example from "The Hammer of God."
“Look at that blacksmith, for instance,” went on Father Brown calmly; “a good
man, but not a Christian — hard, imperious, unforgiving. Well, his Scotch religion
was made up by men who prayed on hills and high crags, and learnt to look down
on the world more than to look up at heaven. Humility is the mother of giants. One
sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.”
I wondered what that was up, so did some research. Here's a good essay.
https://reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n6/ant_v1n6_Chesterton.html
The essence of Chesterton's view seem to me to be:
1. He converted to Catholicism, and cognitive dissonance theory says he would be its strongest defender.
2. He (and other Catholics) conflate all Protestants.
3. He (and other Catholics) say the church came first and then the Bible, so we can't put Scripture before the Bible; the church created the Bible. Well, lots of problems there. Most of the Bible was written before the church even showed up (the Old Testament). The church of the first two centuries was not the church of Roman Catholicism, either. No pope, no veneration of saints, no celibacy required.
4. The "sins" of the Catholic church are very hard for Protestants to swallow. Sure, we have plenty of our own, but it's easy, especially now, to see the systemic and theological problems in Catholicism. Chesterton claimed that Protestants do not believe their own doctrine. I think we might say that Catholics believe theirs too much.
5. Finally, despite enjoying his writing, I have found some of his theological and apologetic writing too clever by half. Witty, very British, lots of paradoxes that get me thinking but also finding them unnecessary. I admit to being too prosaic.
Comments