Skip to main content

A Thought about Thinking, a little tribute to Chesterton

I have to offer another quote. Sorry, I've been reading GK Chesterton and I just love this guy. I'll try to supply the context after,

"...the modern man fancies he has reached supreme culture because he opens his intellect...There is one odd aspect of the man with this sort of open mind...it is that being thus gaping and helpless, he is really brutal and oppressive. he tyrannises; he forces on all other men his own insolent indecision. He forbids his followers to come to any conclusion till he has done so. He will allow no one else to find the truth...He is the worst tyrant that the world has seen; he is the persecuting sceptic. He is the man who has held up the whole world now for over a hudred years." (London Times Oct 16, 1909)

His point is very simple. One who tries to forever remain an 'open mind' is one who can never actually come to a decision. For example to be open-minded when it comes to say abortion, or euthenasia, or Reformed theology really means to never actually believe anything definitive about it. Once you do you become 'closed-minded.' And the one who demands others maintain an open mind really demands indecisiveness upon others. To maintain an open mind is to never close down on an idea, or theology, or viewpoint. It really is to detach yourself from the world of thought. Isn't it interesting that the ebbing flow of culture has taken something so compassionate sounding 'open mindedness' to mask something so bland and boring and dangerous as detachment?

As a side note --read GK Chesterton, you'll love him (probably)!

Comments

Anonymous said…
what's that old joke about being so open-minded your brains fall out? i've noticed that the most "open-minded" often fall into two camps: the lazy and the militant.

Since the average American watches, what, 4 hours of TV a day and many people don't engage in any thought-provoking activities at all, being open-minded is the easiest option. many of the "open-minded" individuals that i know personally have half-formed opinions based on TV sound bites, misinformation, a desire for the easy answer, and a sad lack of concern for knowing truth. They aren't bad people or ill-intentioned, just... intellectually and morally lazy.

i also see the militant every day at law school, as i attend arguably the most liberal school in america (not a single conservative faculty; students think it's worse to illegally download music than have an abortion).

the few conservative-leaning students on campus (myself included) have found that, if you aren't passionately liberal (socially and politically), your opinion is really not acceptable. i've noticed that the more "open-minded" a person considers himself or herself, the more viciously that person attacks opposing viewpoints. it's not just students, either - i've actually heard professors sneer at comments which hint at non-liberal ideas. in general, anything other than liberal ideology is branded as intolerant, hateful, and unwelcome.

i don't mind this because i am constantly challenged to be thoughtful and articulate about what i believe, and people generally respect that in one-to-one conversations. however, the prevailing atmosphere is overwhelmingly opposed to "dissenting" viewpoints - hardly what the casual observer would expect from an institution that takes great pains to be "open-minded."

Popular posts from this blog

The 'Greatest' Theologian/Preacher/Christian Philosopher

Here's a fun little discussion for us. Who is the greatest theologian since the apostle Paul? Sounds too subjective, but here are some criteria to evaluate by: 1) Personal life - Did this person's personal character reflect his convictions effectively? 2) Breadth of Influence - How wide and long has this person's influence effected the church and the world? 3) Depth of thought - How careful, biblical, and articulate were this persons's works? My vote to come...

Remember Miss Bates from Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis imagines two people: one Miss Bates, a naturally cranky unkind woman who becomes a Christian and the other Dick Firkin, a naturally friendly kind person who has not yet become a Christian. “Christian Miss Bates may have an unkinder tongue than unbelieving Dick Firkin. That, by itself, does not tell us whether Christianity works. The question is what Jane’s tongue would be like if she were not a Christian and what Dick’s would be like if he became one. Miss Bates and Dick, as a result of natural causes and early upbringing, have certain temperaments: Christianity professes to put both temperaments under new management if they will allow it to do so. What you have a right to ask is whether that management, if allowed to take over, improves the concern. Everyone knows that what is being managed in Dick Firkin’s case is much ‘nicer’ than what is being managed in Miss Bates’. That is not the point. To judge the management of a factory, you must consider not only the

Does Church History Matter?

In a so called unprecedented age, where all of Christianity is re-inventing itself, and all of Christian doctrine is up for re-writing , one must ask the question "Does church history matter?" (Just to write this almost makes me cringe at how unbelievably near-sighted my generation has become!) If we say 'yes it matters' too emphatically, the response will be "Why are you Protestants then?" Didn't Luther radically depart from centuries of theological teaching. One common criticism against Luther (and the Reformation) was "Can you alone be right and the whole world be wrong?" And, when Luther talks about Sola Scriptura, isn't he saying Scripture is all that matters? A few things about Luther. First, his Sola Scriptura argument was not that Scripture is the only authority for the church, but that Scripture alone is the final authority for the church. According to Luther, there can be, indeed should be, lesser authorities, including pasto