In yesterday’s posting we mentioned an essay by G. K.
Chesterton from an obscure collection published in 1934 that started us on the
train of thought that led to this brief series.
In the essay, “On Facing Facts,” Chesterton opined that Englishmen of
his day tended to live a little too much in the far-distant past, and not
enough in the more recent past.
 |
| Prussian Trinity: Bismarck, Roon, Moltke |
We took “On Facing Facts” as, in part, a subtle hint to
Chesterton’s disciples, then and now, who seem to have developed the habit of
tailoring truth and editing facts to meet their particular needs, and feed
their favorite fancies and hobby horses.
This impression was strengthened by another essay in the collection, “On
Prussian Paganism.” This also
strengthened the impression we have gained over the past few years that
Chesterton was attempting to keep his disciples and followers on the
straight-and-narrow, and prevent them from veering off along the path of
expedience and self-interest, not to say self-righteousness.
Be that as it may, the essay taking on the Prussians began
by noting that a German general had recently declared that he repudiated
Christianity “as not appropriate to the German character.” (p. 201.) Chesterton then commented,
 |
| Unsuited to G.K.'s Temperament? |
“The
remark set me thinking, especially about the general absence of thought, and a
growing division in mankind upon that matter.
To me it seems very much as if I were to say: ‘I deny the existence of
the Solar System, as unsuited to the Chestertonian temperament.’ In other words, I cannot make any sense of it
at all.” (Ibid.)
These words practically leaped off the page. They recalled a rather bizarre series of
events from some time back that still cause a sense of bafflement at the
uncommon nonsense exhibited by the followers of the Apostle of Common Sense. It was almost as if Chesterton had a crystal
ball and could see what was coming, and how his own devotees were going to
behave.
A few years back a friend of CESJ went to a great deal of
trouble to introduce members of the CESJ core group to a Prominent
Chestertonian. The friend suggested we
send some material to the PC, so we did.
When we followed up, the PC claimed he hadn’t seen the material.
 |
| Didn't happen, either. |
We sent the material again, and followed up. This time the PC said he had lost the
material. We resent the material yet
again. A few weeks later we met the PC
at a conference. Although not meeting
anyone’s eyes, he said he must not have received it, and asked that we send it
again. We did. He refused to return follow up phone calls. About that time the penny dropped, so we gave
the PC up as a bad job.
The CESJ friend cornered the PC at some event or other a
month or so later, and demanded to know less-than-diplomatically what was going
on. The PC mumbled something about “It’s
not our way.” Although this was less
than enlightening (or even very honest), we let it, too, drop.
Until we came across the essay by Chesterton. All of a sudden the whole issue became clear.
 |
| Oh, dear, I can't decide: true? False? |
It didn’t matter to the PC whether CESJ’s “Just Third Way”
is true or false, any more than the truth or falsity of Christianity mattered
to the German general. The only thing that
mattered was whether the Just Third Way or Christianity is compatible with, or
suits the tastes and temperaments of, Chestertonians or Germans, respectively. When the question of truth or falsity is
raised, as Chesterton explained,
 |
| "It's always you, isn't it." |
“[T]he
answer is not that the theory is false, but that it has not been specially
composed to suit the taste or temperament of people living in a particular
marsh, or halfway up a particular mountain, or along the shores of a particular
inland lake; or in any local atmosphere which may or may not improve the
faculties for finding the truth. It does
not matter whether the statement is a statement of fact; it only matters
whether it will instantly fit into the mood now filling the mind of the people
in Tibet or Tooting or Ballyhooley or Berlin.”
(Ibid., 206.)
The only thing that matters is whether or not it’s their way.
#30#
