Happy Wednesday! We had a fairly low key day at the Hancock household. I start week 2 of the C25k training plan today and though it was definitely harder than last week, I completed my 30 minutes without dying and without backing down from my personal distance and calorie goals for the workout, so I'm pleased overall. Then, Justin and I went over to our friend Lessie's house and ate lunch and played with her and her little daughter. Tonight, I had choir practice for two and a half hours, so I'm glad to be home and done with my day. Though not as busy as a normal school day would be, this day had enough activity in it for me to be glad I'm home.
I started another new venture today which has the potential to stir up many future musings and questions. I decided to start reading G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Chesterton was a late 19th-early 20th century English writer and theologian who engaged in theological debate with such contemporaries as Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw. Chesterton is sometimes called the "prince of paradox" because of his ability to turn a popular phrase or idea inside out before using it to prove his point. On a personal note, many of the people I know who have read Orthodoxy, including Justin, have told me that to make it through a page or two at a time of Chesterton is quite an accomplishment because of the density of his writing and his pithy phrases. Therefore, though this volume is only 129 pages in length, it could take a long time to complete.
Already today, in the Preface of all things, I found one such phrase that made me stop in my tracks. In explaining his approach to writing Orthodoxy, Chesterton says he "has been forced to egotistical only in order to be sincere...It is the purpose of the writer to attempt an explanation, not of whether the Christian Faith can be believed, but of how he personally has come to believe it." Egotistical = sincere? Really? The more I thought about this, the more it started making sense to me. In fact, it reminded me of a conversation Lessie and I had not too long ago about how we misuse the word "selfish" in the Christian church. We started thinking about all the times we would start phrases with "I know this may sound selfish, but..." and honestly, at the end of most of the buts was something that referred to taking care of ourselves. Personally, I often find myself saying, "I know this may sound selfish, but I need to have some time to myself so I can't do (fill in extraneous activity), even though I know so-and-so really wants me to be there."
Though it is difficult to acknowledge because of other people's expectations on my time and energy, the best thing I can do for other people is to take care of myself. That's not selfish--it's healthy. To admit that I have limits both mentally and physically makes me real and human. In the same way, Chesterton addresses his faith through the lens of his personal experience in order to be authentic, not self-involved. Defining his theology through personal experience makes his sometimes difficult-to-understand ideas real, tangible, meaningful for the fact they have been born and refined through the fire of human life. It would seem in our day and age of the Internet, more such authentic sharing of life and faith would be easier and more accessible, and thus, more prevalent.
Why, then, does it sometimes seem so difficult to distinguish between the selfish, shallow evangelist and the authentic, Christ-seeking egotist?
I am intrigued as to the theological debate that Chesterton had with Oscar Wilde. I have read several well-written historical mysteries with Oscar Wilde as the protagonist and have been wanting to try to fit in some minor Oscar Wilde research as to his philosophy/psychology.
ReplyDeleteAnd btw, this post was an intriguing mini-"sermon". You have obviously have the gift of delivering a message that strikes a chord (no pun intended) in each and every listener (or reader)