I have begun reading through Gilbert K. Chesterton’s book “Heretics/Orthodoxy” which as it turns out is already much more insigtful and much less irritating than reading the works of heretics who generously ignore orthodoxy. Of course whenever one uses the word “heretic” of another person immedietely charges of hate and bigot are levied. This did not stop Chesterton, and should not stop those concerned with Biblical orthodoxy today. As Chesterton battled heresy and heretics in his day (and in this book), he made this very important statement:
…I have come to believe in going back to the fundamentals. Such is the general idea of this book. I wish to deal with my most distinguised contemporaries, not personally or in a merely literary manner, but in relation to the real body of doctrine which they teach. I am not concerned with Mr Rudyard Kipling as a vivid artist or a vigorous personality; I am conceerned with him as a Heretic – that is to say, a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine. I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic – that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong. I revert to the methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.
I love the statement that I put in bold because it seems today we cannot discuss the philosophy without someone assuming that we are attacking the persons character. And on the flip side (See the Hate Card post) some refuse to discuss philosophy and jump right into the personal attacks.
All that to say: I think I’m really going to enjoy this book.
