![]() ![]() It would be unjust both to journalists and priests, but it would be much truer of journalists. Or they will complain that a sermon cannot be interrupted, and call a pulpit a coward’s castle, though they do not call an editor’s office a coward’s castle. They will complain of parsons dressing like parsons, as if we should be any more free if all the police who shadowed or collared us were plainclothes detectives. Thus they make current and anticlerical cant as a sort of small talk. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone, as of a random and illiterate heckling. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. And a particular point of it is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. “The point of this book, in other words, is that the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. Though Chesterton writes as a committed Roman Catholic,* his critiques of modern thought are incisive and worth reading. But Chesterton’s mind is sharp and he is quick to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in unbelieving thought. ![]() The book is not academic or annotated, and Chesterton grants this weakness. ![]() This is a witty apologetic that advocates original monotheism, as opposed to an evolutionary account of religion, and the supernatural origins and distinct status of Christianity, as opposed to a higher critical and comparative religions approach. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |