Letters in Springtime

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Today’s Prize Winning Letter

No particular recent post but that seems to happen a lot recently. First off, I am increasingly finding you to be a wackadoodle nut job with significant blind spots regarding an assortment of racial and social issues that I assume stems from living so far north and disconnected from “others” along with a heavy dose of echo chamber online media intake. But every now and then you manage to somehow say something significant. One of those ideas is your thoughts on raising children to love the law not just obey it. Would you kindly point me towards a book I assume you wrote that best dives into this subject.

Thanks in advance

James

James, I confess that I did not see the second half of this letter coming. Second, I am curious about your selection criteria for getting parental advice. And third, I am pretty sure that I teach “teach them to love the standard” in a number of places. I would start with Why Children Matter, then Father Hunger, and then Future Men.

Christian Cops

RE: Duties of Christian Cops

Amen, Amen and Amen! More could be said but everything said was 100% on the mark!

Thanks for saying what so many don’t want to hear. It’s been two decades for me and I knew the moment I entered the academy that this day would come. I have had many red lines over the years where I gave my reasons and simply said, “No.” This resulted in a lot of yelling on their part but they eventually backed down . . . that is until last year when my red line became one too many for their inclusive tolerance values. Years of saying no made walking out the door as easy as falling off a log. History has proven that if you have never had a red line in the past, finding one in the future will be a challenge.

Jon

Jon, thank you for your service, and thank you also for that last point. If your last stand is your first stand, you might not do very well.

Nuisance Lust

I have just finished listening to your post “Dealing with Nuisance Lust.” I have a challenge in my marriage that is loosely related to that. Lets say, perhaps, my wife and I are on a walk together. As we’re walking, a woman walks by in spandex, hypothetically. Regardless of my response to said woman, I am in the dog house. My wife assumes I lust after the woman, and I can’t reason with her that that’s not necessarily true. The logic is: There’s a scantily clad woman, I saw said woman, so I lusted after her. Similarly, imagine my brother and his girlfriend came to visit us for a weekend. During the weekend, I talked to my brother’s girlfriend. My wife, observing my interactions with the girlfriend, interprets something I did as flirtatious. I assure her, this is not true, and If it were, she would be rightfully upset. After they leave, my wife asks me: “Do you think Sally [name obscured] is attractive?” And I say “I can see how someone could be attracted to Sally, but I am not attracted to her.” This was not received well . . . at all. Now imagine this occurrence happened 11 months ago and my wife is still heartbroken over the assumed unfaithfulness. We’ll have been married for a year next week. At a loss,

Joe

Joe, okay, so this is bigger than can be addressed in a response to a letter. The first thing I would suggest you do is get some marriage counseling from your pastor. You take the lead. You make the appointment. That said, there are two possibilities. Start with the possibility that you are kidding yourself. Run a hard-hitting spiritual inventory on your own internal reactions to that conversation with your brother’s girlfriend. If you talked intently with her for forty-five minutes, then maybe your wife has a point. But if you just said hi, and chatted for two minutes, then your wife as a serious problem and you need to address it now.

I . . . have really been learning so much from your pastor’s videos through YouTube. I wish we lived closer! Our family is hungry for solid Bible teaching like this.

So, I have been happily married to my best friend for almost 11 years. We become believers together early in marriage and have been growing together in our spiritual lives. I really do adore him and am full of gratitude and respect for him. He’s a great dad and leader of our family. Obviously we aren’t perfect, but we both are fully committed to God and each other.

That said, one area I am wondering what a helpful amount of communication in a marriage when it comes to struggles with lust. I have no reason not to trust my husband and I do trust him, but I just want him to know we can talk about stuff together. Lately, I’ve been concerned if he’s attracted to another woman. I don’t want to bring it up if it would make things worse, and I do want to bring it up for the sake/protection of our marriage. And so I want to bring it up in a non-accusing way, but just openly. I’m not upset either, because I know him being a man, it’s just hard and he doesn’t do anything for me to suspect wrongdoing. But it’s just in that temptation phase, and I have prayed and tried to forget about it. I’ve told him I feel insecure I this area and we had a good initial talk, but is it okay to ask if he’s tempted by this woman or should I not ask? I know we are made differently, but for me, him being attracted to another woman affects me too. So anyway, any insight here would be helpful.

AK

AK, if your only insecurity is coming from the fact that this other woman is one that you think is attractive, or you assume is prettier than you, or something like that, then I think you should ask your husband for prayer, help, and encouragement in your reactions to this woman, not his. Remember that your husband can think that this woman is attractive without being attracted. But if your insecurity comes from comments your husband makes, or the way he spends time talking with her, then ask your husband if you can ask him about it. If he is a faithful man, you shouldn’t ask him what he is up to, but rather if he is open to input about how some of the things he is doing set you up for bouts of insecurity and comparisons.

Where Is That?

Love the content! Just listened to your last post and in it you quoted from “Return of the King.” Can you send the chapter / page that was in. Great quote!

Adam

Adam, that quote is from the chapter entitled The Scouring of the Shire, near the end of the book.

Speaking of Red Lines

Dear public school teachers: “You should know what line you are not going to cross, no matter what, and be fully prepared for the consequences when you refuse to cross it.” I retired three years ago from California’s public school system. I taught in probably the most conservative district in the state—yet the pressure was on to tolerate, adopt and teach liberal philosophies—especially sexual ones. EVERY teacher is going to have to choose—and very soon. Our churches are not preparing us, sad to say.

Melody

Melody, thank you.

Preterism

Having grown up hearing exclusively futurist viewpoints of Revelation, I enjoyed reading your preterist view in “When The Man Comes Around.” I’m now reading through Old Testament prophets with this “new” framework in mind, and it’s quite eye-opening. Can you help me understand where Zechariah 14 fits in the grand redemptive story? Thank you!

Robert

Robert, here are some sermon notes on Zechariah 14. Also this might be a good time to remind everyone that this blog has a Scripture index, located under About in the top menu bar. You can select any book, and see if I have written anywhere about any given passage.

Death Cult Comments

Perhaps one of your best (Death Cult of Expressive Individualism). Thank you. Good grist for the evangelistic mill! It fills me with hope, joy, and not a little trepidation to be living at this moment when the long years of corrosive unbelief are now turning everything to vapor. It as if the fog is materializing, but so, too, we know soon the sun will break through and we will see clearly.

Jon

Jon, thanks, and yes, hope is the right response.

The Death Cult of Expressive Individualism is one of the best things you have ever written.

Josh

Josh, thanks.

Thank you for “The Death Cult of Expressive Individualism.” You distilled down what was my entire degree’s worth of thinking and ruminating on the ideas of Chesterton, Lewis, and Old Princeton Christendom into a single blog post. And it’s cask strength to boot. This, along with your recent dialogue with Glenn Sunshine, has really served-permanently, I hope-to open my eyes to the empire smashing power of “Jesus is Lord.”

Aside from the aforementioned men, could you recommend any further reading to drill down deep into my soul the implications of that phrase. I want to smile confidently as I take it in the teeth for being a primitive premodern.

John

John, try reading through David Wells’ stuff, starting with No Place for Truth. And Idols for Destruction, and then Beale’s We Become What We Worship.

Jonah Goldberg

The only person whose cultural and political commentary I follow nearly as closely as yours is Jonah Goldberg. He seems to have much insight, even if for no other reason than that he is not a Christian, yet often sees the importance of Christianity in our society. Any theories on why he is better on this stuff than the ostensibly Calvinist David French? I can’t force myself to read or listen to him anymore. I’d be curious to hear more of your thoughts there.

Clayton

Clayton, it is hard for me to tell from this distance, but I think that it is because Jonah is more generally interested in ideas and truth than he is in “sides.”

Reading the Situation

I believe you are right when you say we are in a Jehoiada situation. And I am content to wait on God’s timing in the late arrival of the spines of our lesser magistrates, if that is God’s will. Or whatever else may come to pass so that we can live a little less molested by the oligarchs and the state. But do you think that a quicker and more organized way out of our situation could be more like Judges 20? I’m thinking of something resembling a convention of states since many of our leaders seem so incapable of landing a punch that matters.

Thanks for all your hard fun.

Cardin

Cardin, I don’t know. I would be really worried about a convention of states, frankly.

Chesterton’s Blind Spot

I am wrapping up Orthodoxy by Chesterton for the first time, after hearing many a time my father, as well as you and Nate, lauding the book with praise. I have greatly enjoyed it, even in spite of what seem to be rather superficial criticisms of Calvinism/Protestantism sprinkled here and there. I just had one observation that I was curious what your opinions on it might be. Am I wrong in finding it rather ironic how greatly GK lauds political democracy (going so far in one place to say that aristocracy was a sin, albeit a rather venial one), while being an ardent papist? It seems to me that there is nothing in the world less democratic than the Roman church. But, perhaps I am drawing too close a connection between what I think the proper form of church government is and what I think the proper organization of political government is. Maybe the connection there is the deeper question that needs to be answered?

Grant

Grant, I think that Chesterton’s actual affinity was for the underdog, and his democratic sympathies grew out of that. And in the thoroughly Protestant England of his day, to be a papist was to be an underdog.

More Eschatology

Having discovered your writings just over the past year, I realize how valuable it would have been to have grown up under them. Now when I stumble upon (or walk straight into) a complex question that I hadn’t yet found categories for, I find myself wondering whether you had addressed it before. I am often pleased and always edified when I discover that you had. In fact, “Reforming Marriage” had such an impact on me and my marriage (Bought because one day I was just thinking, “I wonder if Doug Wilson has written anything on marriage?”), that were our baby (due in July) a boy, it would not be far-fetched for us to justify or at least consider naming him “Douglas Wilson.” Reading through the prophets this year, I have come to understand how unsatisfactory my eschatology is at explaining certain passages, such as Isaiah 65:17-25, which makes me wonder how I ever read them before at all. My wife and I looked up various explanations of these passages, but I do not know how to assess them without knowing what the person’s eschatology is.

In the above passage, describing the new heaven and new earth, there will be nursing infants and death (v. 20), which leads me to believe either this isn’t describing us in the resurrection as I thought verse 17 indicates (where people will not be given in marriage as Matthew 22:30 says, and there will be no more death as Revelation 21:4 says), or I don’t understand something about the way this is written and what the prophet intended to communicate.

For full disclosure, I am for certain a partial preterist. I’ve been told that my position is amillennial, but I’m not convinced that is true. I have maintained that whenever the Bible uses big, round numbers, it almost always isn’t referring to an exact number. Beyond that, my position has been ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, which I no longer find acceptable as I wish to understand what the Lord has intended for me to know as I read the prophets.

So my question comes in two parts. I’m not sure how to order them, but I think like this:

1. How do you exegete these passages of Scripture that are dealing with either past events that you are not familiar with, or future events that cannot be elucidated with a history book or a map?

2. For people who are still trying to work out their eschatology, are you aware of any resources that would be helpful in seeing the side-by-side interpretation of passages like these based on the eschatology of the interpreters?

Cam

Cam

Cam, thanks for the kind words. For your last question, the only side-by-side approach I know of is Steve Gregg’s book on Revelation. As a general pattern, I try to look at everything the New Testament says about as passage in the OT first.

A Crazy Theory

I finally bit the bullet and bought a copy of Eggs are Expensive, and Sperm is Cheap by Greg Krehbiel. It is a great read, and I am enjoying it immensely. Thank you for continuing to recommend it.

I am, however, writing to address a conspiracy theory I have about the book. As I read, it continues to suspiciously sound more and more like the writings of the great patriarchal agitator Doug Wilson. I feel that the voice and style are too similar to be dismissed. So here is my theory:

Doug Wilson (Lord Voldemort, for those reading this with specific Twitter handles) wants to continue to spread the patriarchal view and resume his conquest of feeble minds. He realizes that certain people will not read his books if he has his name listed at the bottom, so he created the pseudonym “Greg Krehbiel.” (Even the great John Calvin himself used the pseudonym “Charles d’ Espeville” when the stakes were high.)

When looking at this name’s etymology, it becomes clear that Lord Voldemort is indeed the author. Greg is an offshoot of the Greek word for “Vigilant.” The Surname of Krehbiel is an offshoot of the German word for “Crow.” The author’s name means “Vigilant Crow.” All know crows are tied to the dark; and, therefore, connected to their dark master, Lord Voldemort.

I hope now that others will see through this charade and buy the book.

Jesse

Jesse, no, Greg is a real person. I deny everything. But then, of course, I would.

Wisdom from the North

Thought you might appreciate these thoughts—coming from the son of a rock legend (at least up here in Canada, or should I say Wokistan)

Blair

Blair, thanks.

Biographies

You mentioned we are to read biographies of men who conquered cities, climbed mountains, went out exploring, etc. Read them looking for elements in their extraordinary life that you can replicate in your ordinary life.

What are some biographies would you recommend?

David

David, here is just a sampling. Dallimore’s two volume biography of Whitefield, Manchester’s biography of Churchill, and McCrie’s Life of John Knox.

Great Book

Have you read Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, by Carl Trueman? His diagnosis and thesis are the same as what you laid out here. It seems to me that if we are to present the gospel in 2021 so that it will be truly understood, we have to do it this way. Thank you so much for your faithfulness, it has really equipped me for the work of the ministry.

Phil

Phil, thanks, and yes, I have. Great book.

Anonymity?

I created a podcast, Conserv Yourself, and after 40 episodes I give no indication as to my identity (intentional) due to the growing cancel culture and stories of online threats. I am by no means “controversial” except for the conservative and Judeo-Christian ideals that are at odds with our culture. How should someone determine when/if we should put our name behind something in the face of strong and aggressive opposition? Are there instances where anonymity is OK for podcasting?

Conserv Yourself

CY, yes, there are times when anonymity is appropriate, depending on the threat levels. The central thing to guard against is slipping into character assassination without any accountability. Don’t do that. “For look! The wicked bend their bow, They make ready their arrow on the string, That they may shoot secretly at the upright in heart.” (Psalm 11:2, NKJV)

The Postmill Blues

Happy Lord’s Day! That may be an ironic greeting, considering what I write here. I recently read the post from 2013, “Even Postmillennialists Get the Blues.” It’s rather funny to me that you would mention how crossing the bridge to a Postmil position went like “wheee,” because I’m not experiencing that at all. I am in my early 20s, and I have only ever known a pessimillennial view of the future. With recent events, I am getting almost exclusively discouragement about the decisions I need to make concerning how I will live the rest of my life, assuming the LORD provides me with another week or month or year. It is wearing on my soul, it is not helping me overcome sin, and it is not helping me make decisions—it is only making me more worried and confused.

I am only recently coming to understand a Postmillennial/optimillennial viewpoint. That doesn’t mean I have settled on it, and I understand that the truth is determined neither by my settling on a position nor by my agreeing with someone. I love my family, I love my pastor and his family, and I love the people in my congregation, so I want to seek my leadership’s counsel and submit to their authority. My pastor just preached this morning on Daniel 11:25-45 and took it down the pessimistic route. Do you have any advice on how I can speak with them about this subject, especially in light of recent and current events (e.g. government overreach)? And, if I become and remain the lone opti-millennialist, how ought I to behave and how ought that inform my decisions?

Thank you so much, and may the LORD remember you in his kingdom.

Caleb

Caleb, very sorry for your situation. In your current place, if you do wind up changing your mind in the midst of a bunch of people you love, my only encouragement is that you not become a trouble-maker. And for encouragement, start attending conferences elsewhere where most of the people are postmill. That’ll get you jazzed.

Aliens?

Any thoughts on whether aliens are compatible with the gospel story? As you may know, 60 minutes just ran a special on aliens and my (Christian) buddy insists that there isn’t any reason why the Bible can’t be true and aliens still exist. I told him that Jesus not mentioning aliens would be like a guy with two families who are unknown to each other insisting to his first wife and kids, “just because I had another family I didn’t tell you about, that doesn’t change our relationship!” Which it obviously does.

I’d love to hear your thoughts, but if you have any resources that you recommend to explore this question, that would be fine also.

Thank you for your ministry!

Jeff

Jeff, well, I believe in them. I just don’t call them aliens. I call them cherubim, seraphim, angels, archangels, thrones, principalities, and powers.

In response to a letter you received from a reader regarding the subject of UFOs, I recommend the following link to Mick West (British UFO sceptic), who clinically debunks the recent Pentagon triangle UFO footage from the US navy.

I also highly recommend, from a Christian and pastoral perspective, the now dated, but extremely useful book by John Weldon & Zola Levitt, UFOS: What On Earth is Happening? (Harvest House 1975).

I agree there may well be a demonic element to UFOs, but first we need to wait and see what the precise nature of this phenomenon is—not least because the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings are simple mis-identifications of natural or human phenomena.

Even the tiny percentage of as yet unexplained sightings may turn out to be mundane.

On the other hand, I sense issues surrounding so-called alien abduction, or communion with non-human entities, etc, rightly belongs in the realm of the occult.

Nor should we ignore the very real possibility that the global superpowers are up to their necks in highfalutin experiments and Black Projects.

Brendan

Brendan, thanks for the info.

Homeschooling Down the Road

My kids are still toddlers and babes so I won’t be homeschooling for awhile. I expect things like Abeka or Bob Jones won’t last long as resources for homeschooling. Are there books on the basic subjects that can be used to create curriculum from for all ages? Like an English book or series I can use throughout the years for example.

Haven

Haven, I am not quite sure what you are asking for, but you might check out the Canon Classics, which have accompanying worldview guides.

Heavenly Dragons

In the midst of reflecting on Genesis 3 I was re-reading “That Little Lizard Self Inside” and remembered a connection I’ve heard you make in the past between the terms “serpent” and “seraph”. As far as I can tell the word for Serpent in Genesis 3 is different than the more common “seraph/serpent” that’s used in Numbers 21 but the idea seems to be the same: The serpent in the garden was an accuser and the people of Israel were conformed to that image by accusing Moses and God. I’m wondering about your take on the appearance of Satan in the garden. Since serpent/seraph are so closely linked are we to assume that Satan did not merely appear in the form of a “serpent” in the garden but was in fact closer to the appearance of the seraphs in Isaiah 6, for example? Enjoyed your talks at Fight, Laugh, Feast in SD. Thanks!

Cory

Cory, right. This is a matter of putting bits and pieces together. Revelation calls the devil that ancient dragon (drakos), and John tells us he was a murderer from the beginning, inspiring Cain. And the warning to the serpent in Gen. 3:15 is repeated in Romans 16 and applied to Satan. And Numbers calls the serpent on a pole a seraph, and Jesus in John 3 applies that to His death on the cross.

Yes, It Is

Is the New Jerusalem/New Heaven and Earth synonymous with the Christian Church? Will there ever be a physical New Heaven, Earth and City? If so, which scriptures speak about that? Thank you

Lee

Lee, I do understand the New Jerusalem as the Christian Church. The angel told John, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the lamb.” He then took him to a high mountain and showed him the New Jerusalem. In Galatians, the Jerusalem above is the mother of us all. In Hebrews 12, when we come to worship God acceptably in reverence and godly fear, we do so coming to the heavenly Zion. So yes. The new heavens and the new earth I take as the restored earth, both in the process of restoration and in the culmination.

I know you’re a friend of Dr. James White. I made this video and thought you might get a kick out of it. My impersonation of Dr. White on the Dividing Line.

Regards,

Seth

Seth, let me step over to the side here, in order that James may thank you himself.

Education Savings Accounts

On the last round of letters, user Thomas wrote in about educational savings opportunities for his children. Thought I would share what my father did for me, one that worked out very well for me and my siblings and for which I highly respect him: He set up for each of us what is called and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) account. In simple terms, as far as I understand it, these are normal mutual/index funds that one can add money into monthly, and will grow at the rate that the market or index is growing. This makes it a pretty solid long-term option, as long term, the market always goes up (generally). Whoever sets up these funds opens them in the name of a minor, and is the custodian of the funds until the minor is no longer, well, a minor, at which point the newly-christened-adult becomes the sole proprietor of the fund.

Some pros of this are that the account isn’t actually tied to education, so the money in the fund can be liquidated and used for anything without paying a penalty. It also can be set to track which mutual/index fund you want, so you can be more/less aggressive. Biggest con seems to be that the money that is taken out is taxable income, so that has to be kept in mind when withdrawals are made.

Obviously Thomas should look into these more before making any decisions, but this seems to me to be a pretty sane savings option. Hope it helps!

Grant

Grant, thank you.

Regarding educational savings funds and NSA/ other non-woke institutions: I am trying to decide how to save for my toddlers college education. Researching 529 plans, I found that they must be used at institutions deemed “eligible” by the state 529 board and/or the IRS. I currently live in an authoritarian country where all christian schools are unaccredited and hunted by the police. I see the possibility that this will be true in the USA (or parts of it at least) 18 years from now, and so these savings accounts could be used to restrict my children’s college savings to use at appropriately woke institutions. Any advice for parents looking to save wisely?

Joel

Joel, thanks, and see the previous letter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jane
Jane
3 years ago

Greg Krehbiel is a real person, and a friend of mine, albeit virtually only. I believe Kyriosity has even spent time with him and his wife in person.

Greg Krehbiel
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

“Virtually only,” but for decades. :)

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Yep…I’ve met both Greg and Doug in person and can assure all and sundry that they are not the same man!

While we’re on the topic, I’ll share one of my favorite Gregisms from bygone years. He once wrote that instead of a maid of honor and a best man, the bride and groom should have seconds…like men in a duel. During the ceremony, each party hands a gun to the other’s second and says something like, “If I am ever unfaithful to Susie, you may use this to shoot me dead.” That oughta cut down on adultery rather nicely!

Ken
Ken
3 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

So, a gunshot wedding instead of a shotgun wedding.

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  Ken

Well, one hopes that the guns would not have to be used right then and there. 😉

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  Ken

Also, it’s pretty impressive that four of us from the old RYM forum are here on this comment thread twenty years later!

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
3 years ago

Doug, you don’t want to omit Dominions and Virtues from the nine orders of the Celestial Hierarchy. They come after Thrones and before Powers.

Greg Krehbiel
3 years ago

I am, of course, flattered to be confused with Doug Wilson, who is a much better and deeper thinker than I am. We do have a few things in common, which may partly explain why my book reminds you of DW. I have spent some time in similar theological circles. DW and I have both read “That Hideous Strength” about a million times. We’re both big fans of Wodehouse. And neither of us has any patience with feminism.

I would normally sign myself as “Crowhill,” but given the circs …

Ken
Ken
3 years ago

With all due respect, Seth, don’t quit the day job.

Adad
3 years ago

Well, just to lower the level of comments thus far……

Will there ever be a “Wackadoodle Wednesday” feature on Blog and Mablog?

It would presumably showcase curiously schizophrenic letters, written by people struggling to comprehend the host. ; – ) (A host, who, incidentally, is not really that complicated.)

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Adad

Our host excels at making complex ideas comprehensible. But does anyone, really, want to be perceived as an uncomplicated person? I still recollect from time to time a discussion about me that my friends were good enough to have in my presence. “She’s not that easy to figure out,” one said. “Sure, she is,” replied the other. “She’s like one of those transparent old phones they used to have at science fairs. The whole thing may look complicated but it’s not so impressive when you can see all the parts moving and lights flashing on and off.” Hmm.

Adad
3 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Well Jilly, simplicity does have a sophistication all its’ own. ; – )

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Couldn’t find a video, but here’s a still shot of Doug performing Skynyrd’s “Simple Man,” (just guitar, not vocals) so I guess he’s not too averse to that identification.

Consolation prize: Doug singing Freebird.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
3 years ago
Reply to  Adad

That James would seek parenting advice from a wackadoodle nut job says far more about him than it does Doug.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
3 years ago

James must be filling the shoes of other more-woke-and-sanctimonious-than-thou types who haven’t graced this blog with their foolishness lately. I’ll have him know that where I am–much further south than Doug–whites are occasionally bullied for not wearing masks while so-called POCs aren’t. And black-on-white crime is massively underreported. That’s probably not the “racial and social issues” he wanted to hear about, but he can always plug into MSM/government school/Hollywood for his regular programming. And I apologize if he/his aren’t James’ preferred pronouns. I’m backwards that way.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
3 years ago

Grant,

Although Chesterton did not become Catholic until 13 years after he wrote Orthodoxy, his eventual conversion was foreshadowed by this passage from chapter IV:

I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
3 years ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

And this too, of course:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.