Chesterton vs Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.21686959]

Who was right here?

Kierkegaard:

> The greatest danger to Christianity is, I contend, not heresies, heterodoxies, not atheists, not profane secularism – no, but the kind of orthodoxy which is cordial drivel, mediocrity served up sweet. There is nothing that so insidiously displaces the majestic as cordiality. Perpetually polite, so small, so nice, tampering and meddling and tampering some more – the result is that majesty is completely defrauded – of course, only a little bit. And right here is the danger, for the infinite is more disposed to a violent attack than to becoming a little bit degraded – amid smiling, Christian politeness. And yet this politeness is what our Christianity amounts to. But the very essence of Christianity is utterly opposed to this mediocrity, in which it does not so much die as dwindle away.

>Today’s orthodoxy essentially has its abode in the cordial drivel of family life. This is utterly dangerous for Christianity. Christianity does not oppose debauchery and uncontrollable passions and the like as much as it is opposes this flat mediocrity, this nauseating atmosphere, this homey, civil togetherness, where admittedly great crimes, wild excesses, and powerful aberrations cannot easily occur – but where God’s unconditional demand has even greater difficulty in accomplishing what it requires: the majestic obedience of submission. Nothing is further from obeying the either/or than this sweet family drivel.

[Anonymous No.21686966]

>>21686959
Does Chesterton confess anywhere that he's a fat pedophile? I want to like him but he needs to own up to his shortcomings that are so obvious to everyone.

[Anonymous No.21686969]

>>21686959
Chesterton was just a rhetorician, he never had a profound thought published
>X is actually not X
Wow so deep

[Anonymous No.21686991]

>Yes

[Anonymous No.21687153]

>>21686959
Along the lines of other orthodox British authors (Bishop Ware's Orthodox Christianity, Philip Sherrard's romantic theology Charles Williams' Coinherence theology) I personally side with Chesterton. Not only do romantic love, the sexual relationship, marriage, and plain jane family life offer the "majestic obedience of submission" Kierkegaard is talking about, but they have their own mystical beauty all together.
Small list of ecommended reads:
Descent into Hell, Charles Williams
Outlines of a Romantic Theology, Williams
Until We Have Faces, C.S. Lewis
Christianity and Eros, Philip Sherrard
The Orthodox Way, Ware
On Marriage and Family Life, St. John Chrysostom

[Anonymous No.21687225]

>>21687153
Redpill me on Many Dimensions, I got an old copy of that lying around.

[Anonymous No.21687232]

>>21686959
Kierkegaard simply because he's not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.21687335]

>>21686966
Do these pedophiles live in your head rent free or something?

[Anonymous No.21687376]

>>21687335
No I am a pedo I can sense them, like gaydar

[Anonymous No.21687446]

>>21686959
>The greatest danger to Christianity is, I contend, not heresies, heterodoxies, not atheists, not profane secularism
Danger isn't from Gnostics, Judaizers, degenerates, ans schismatics but from those happy families in functional industrious societies. It's well known st Paul and all Church tradition argued against those, while not even taking time to condemn the former. All over the wisdom books, the New Testament, the fathers, doctors and councils.
St Athanasius when convoked to Nicaea said: "Arius is small game, I'm dealing with the serious problem of those working family men". The annals of hagiography note how mystics and thaumaturges were characterized by their spite for ordinary men.
Let's look at the positive: Kierkegaard a fortiori argues for priestly vows. Pr*testant """clergy""" btfo.

[Anonymous No.21687449]

Did Chesterton think he’d go to heaven after repeatedly wilfully sinning and filling his body with This-Worldly gluttony and gluttonous desires? What makes him apt to speak on theological matters when he so clearly does not follow his religion? Or is he just following the script of the ordinary, mediocre, christian hypocrite?

[Anonymous No.21687949]

>>21686966
>>21687376
Is there any proof of this or random schizo posting?

[Anonymous No.21688110]

>>21687232
only right answer in the thread.

[Anonymous No.21688265]

>>21686959
Christianity is losing people because it doesn't take itself seriously. People started to disrespect it centuries back (blame the Reformation) and that has reached the point where even the Church loves to mock itself. Everytime Christians try to look "modern" or "cool" or change their rules to be more in-line with 21st century morals, people respect them less and less, because it shows how bullshit it all is. And people stop being Christian, because you can't believe in a religion that feels like a joke. Islam, by comparison, keeps growing and doesn't lose members because it acts like its serious business. It refuses to make a comedy of itself. It doesn't let modernity push it around. That way, it manages to feel real, and people flock to it. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.21688406]

>>21686959
Chesterson's statement is a simple reaction to what Kierkegaard prophesized world would become. A religious world which admires the average will produce nothing but the most vile heterodoxies, stringent fundamentalism, and virtueless secular ideals. The previous norm becomes the standard which the sons of the old patriarchs strives to bear, and any semblance of more ancient times is completely left behind by the previous orthodox followers. Any attempt at restoring the original form of Christianity will simply be a reaction to one of the heresies -- it wouldn't be crafted in the ur-time, nor be born of the ur-soil. The true faith has become sundered irreparably with total distain by every one of its splinters. Only through a solitary ascetic is the true faith given a breath of life; but much like sedimentary soul it inhabits, the true faith will remain isolated until ghastly stillness comes and returns to formless dust.

[Anonymous No.21688726]

Kierkegaard's point of view sounds like a quick and easy path to sinful pride and arrogance. A direct route away from God. What was Joseph if not an ordinary man? Kierkegaard's speech is imprudent.
At the same time, Chesterton's statement is a perfunctory one, and says little if anything of value. It carries with it that same danger of arrogant pride by elevating man and family to the level of the Son of God on Earth. A family united under God is a powerfully comforting thing, and provides an environment in which reverence toward and worship of God can and often does thrive, but that is all I feel qualified to say about it.
To say God is opposed to mediocrity is to spit on the words of Christ himself, yet to give greater glory to man than is his due is problematic.