Chesterton Quote

[JMartyr73340]

Hello:

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I wasn’t sure which one to post it in.

I was reading an essay by Chesterton about Leo Tolstoy. In one part of the essay he talks about a pamphlet he was reading, which was advocating a “socialist version of Christianity”. Now, I am not concerned about Chesterton’s comments on what the pamphlet said. But I am concerned about some remarks he made about the love of God, and whether I am understanding them correctly. Anyway, this is what he wrote:

A pamphlet before us shows us an extraordinary number of statements about the New Testament, of which the accuracy is by no means so striking as the confidence. To begin with, we must protest against a habit of quoting and paraphrasing at the same time. When a man is discussing what Jesus meant, let him state first of all what He said, not what the man thinks He would have said if he had expressed Himself more clearly. Here is an instance of question and answer:

Q. “How did our Master Himself sum up the law in a few words?”

A. “Be ye merciful, be ye perfect even as your Father; your Father in the spirit world is merciful, is perfect.”

There is nothing in this, perhaps, which Christ might not have said except the abominable metaphysical modernism of “the spirit world”; but to say that it is recorded that He did say it, is like saying it is recorded that He preferred palm trees to sycamores. It is a simple and unadulterated untruth. The author should know that these words have meant a thousand things to a thousand people, and that if more ancient sects had paraphrased them as cheerfully as he, he would never have had the text upon which he founds his theory. In a pamphlet in which plain printed words cannot be left alone, it is not surprising if there are mis-statements upon larger matters.

Here is a statement clearly and philosophically laid down which we can only content ourselves with flatly denying: “The fifth rule of our Lord is that we should take special pains to cultivate the same kind of regard for people of foreign countries, and for those generally who do not belong to us, or even have an antipathy to us, which we already entertain towards our own people, and those who are in sympathy with us.”

I should very much like to know where in the whole of the New Testament the author finds this violent, unnatural, and immoral proposition. Christ did not have the same kind of regard for one person as for another. We are specifically told that there were certain persons whom He specially loved. It is most improbable that He thought of other nations as He thought of His own. The sight of His national city moved Him to tears, and the highest compliment He paid was, “Behold an Israelite indeed.” The author has simply confused two entirely distinct things.

Christ commanded us to have love for all men, but even if we had equal love for all men, to speak of having the same love for all men is merely bewildering nonsense. If we love a man at all, the impression he produces on us must be vitally different to the impression produced by another man whom we love. To speak of having the same kind of regard for both is about as sensible as asking a man whether he prefers chrysanthemums or billiards. Christ did not love humanity; He never said He loved humanity: He loved men. Neither He nor anyone else can love humanity; it is like loving a gigantic centipede. And the reason that the Tolstoians can even endure to think of an equally distributed affection is that their love of humanity is a logical love, a love into which they are coerced by their own theories, a love which would be an insult to a tom-cat.

The parts I am concerned with are underlined. Is Chesterton saying that God does not love each man “equally” or with the same “intensity”? What is your opinion?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think Chesterton is emphasizing only that you cannot love a collective as you do an individual. And since we are all individuals, each of us must be loved for ourselves, not because we belong to an abstract entity called “humanity.”

What seemed to irk Chesterton is that Tolstoy was a socialist. Tolstoy would advocate treating all people as equals, rather than each person for his merits. Chesterton early on was a socialist during his early association with Bernard Shaw and the British socialists, but he later abandoned socialism as impractical because it was an attempt to enforce socialism from the top down.

Even today we hear about income distribution needing to be redistributed so that everyone gets the same amount. Chesterton’s view might be (I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer) that if you gave everybody an equal amount of income and came back a year later to see if they still had the same amount, you would find that they do not. That is our human nature. We cannot be treated as equals, though we all equally deserve to be treated as we merit.

 

[catholicscot]

I think it is a quality and quantity question (3 Q’s in one sentence, wow.) Jesus may have the same quantity of love for each person, ie enough to die on the Cross for each of us, but in each particular case the quality is different depending upon the quality of His individual relationship with each person. So, with our Lady because her response to His love is total and unconditional then the quality of their relationship will be different from that which He has with you or me because our response is less total and spontaneous.

What Chesterton was resisting, I think, was the idea that there is some sort of mechanical formula which we can use to describe something which in each particular case is unique.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I think Chesterton is emphasizing only that you cannot love a collective as you do an individual. And since we are all individuals, each of us must be loved for ourselves, not because we belong to an abstract entity called “humanity.”.

Hi Char:

I reread the passage today and I got that as well. I think the key was when he said, “He never said He loved humanity: He loved men.”

However, this remark from the “socialist pamphlet” is being flatly rejected by Chesterton (I think):

*The fifth rule of our Lord is that we should take special pains to cultivate the same kind of regard for people of foreign countries, and for those generally who do not belong to us, or even have an antipathy to us, which we already entertain towards our own people, and those who are in sympathy with us.” *

I think what Chesterton is saying here is that such idealistic love - which embraces all men and is equally distributed among all men - was not even possible for Jesus in his lifetime. Hence, such an ideal is not expected of us.

 

[polytropos]

I reread the passage today and I got that as well. I think the key was when he said, “He never said He loved humanity: He loved men.”

This seems to be one big point that he is making. Christ loves individuals, not humanity as such.

However, this remark from the “socialist pamphlet” is being flatly rejected by Chesterton (I think):

*The fifth rule of our Lord is that we should take special pains to cultivate the same kind of regard for people of foreign countries, and for those generally who do not belong to us, or even have an antipathy to us, which we already entertain towards our own people, and those who are in sympathy with us.” *

I think what Chesterton is saying here is that such idealistic love - which embraces all men and is equally distributed among all men - was not even possible for Jesus in his lifetime. Hence, such an ideal is not expected of us.

I would read his remarks in terms of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity*. Our greatest duties and affections are towards those we are close: our families, our communities, our nations, and then the world. We are called to love all men. It is natural to love our families more than anyone else.

This doesn’t mean that one has no duties to those in other countries or that one should always favor the “in-group” rather than the “out-group.” Some (missionaries, for instance) are called to serve those abroad, for instance. And of course everyone should be shown love. But most people do have more direct duties to those they are close to. I think Chesterton is rejecting the idea that some sort of global egalitarianism is what is really most natural for humans.

• “The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”” (CCC 1883; this section in general is related, I think)

 

[tafan]

Hello:

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I wasn’t sure which one to post it in.

I was reading an essay by Chesterton about Leo Tolstoy. In one part of the essay he talks about a pamphlet he was reading, which was advocating a “socialist version of Christianity”. Now, I am not concerned about Chesterton’s comments on what the pamphlet said. But I am concerned about some remarks he made about the love of God, and whether I am understanding them correctly. Anyway, this is what he wrote:

The parts I am concerned with are underlined. Is Chesterton saying that God does not love each man “equally” or with the same “intensity”? What is your opinion?

You quote the words equally and intensity, but I don’t see Chesterton using those words. And with regards to this topic, there could certainly be subtle difference in people’s use of those words. But, in general, that is what Chesterton is saying. The Gospels certainly point out that Christ loved John in a special way. He seems to have had a very special relationship with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

And even in his divinity, why would you think we would all be “loved” the same by God? God gives each of us the graces we need for our salvation, but by no means does he give us all equal graces.
G

 

[JMartyr73340]

Hey Guys:

Great answers. I agree with everything said here: the “subsidiarity” principle, the quality/quantity distinction, the distribution of grace etc… I think this is what Chesterton was referring to as well.