- K. Chesterton made significant impact on a wide variety of persons during the twentieth century, and continues to be a force in thought processing, especially among Christians. He was a strong stimulus for C. S. Lewis, and the two men were able to both agree and disagree on ideas, literature, even Christianity. Chesterton was firmly Roman Catholic in his defense of Christianity – emotionally and intellectually at odds with the Protestant venture. He was something of a curmudgeon when engaged in discussing the Protestant context. However, when focusing on Scripture, Christ and history, he could provide rich fodder for the biblical apologist – for both human life and immortality for Catholics and/or Protestants.
These Pages have repeated the importance of the family as a major idiom of the print of God in human society. This follows persons like Chesterton who believed that their government rested for success on the life and health of the family. The confusing debate in America relative to restating the definition of the family as possible in the uniting of two persons of the same gender would receive scathing criticism from Chesterton. In the belief in progressive government made so important by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Chesterton would find considerable agreement – if it took into consideration the problems to be managed and the resources necessary for progress. For Chesterton, and those with him, the traditional family was a necessity. In this he was entirely within the biblical order for the possibility of success in common grace. He wrote: Without the family, we are helpless before the state. He wondered if capitalism might even lead to collectivism. Concentration of property in the hands of fewer persons, as is occurring at this writing would play into his views and questions – but that could change. The emergence of voting rights for all citizens, rather than property owners only, moved in the right direction. Even so this move may not be sufficient to counter the accumulations of property among fewer persons so to lead to the fearful result of the fewer but richer groups gaining economic power over the larger, less affluent, masses.
All this relates to what I like to call thinkliving. What can populations do to assure the rights of freedom for all? There are a number of factors to address, but our concern here is the family. The church ought to give important time and attention to the generation of families, in the biblical sense of meaning. This may include church courses, related to the long standing confirmation series, of what the family ought to be, and how it can be generated in this period of history when diluted with laws that change meaning. Perhaps the church needs to make marriage into a legal/religious experience. My suggestion here is not to deny the Catholic position of sacrament for marriage, but it is related to that factor. A Christian couple might carry two documents related to their marriage – one related to civil contract, and the second from the church, solemnized by the church and registered there, not subject to divorce except by the action of the elders of the congregation. It would be unrelated to civil responsibility. It invites divine grace into the common grace privilege. For Christians common grace is incorporated with divine grace. Divine grace can amend common grace in the church context. Treated well there would be blending. If the state can prohibit some marriages, as illustrated in the historic Mormon controversy on multiple marriages, there is reason to believe it might protect meaning of one man/wife marriage as legal option without prejudice.
Christians ought to feel confident when scriptural injunctions related to life factors are kept by society. This does not diminish the responsibility to the state, but enhances it. Scripture is firm about loyalty to the state with family preeminence recognized. Gradually this last has been eroded. At one time a husband or wife could not provide evidence against each other – in respect of family. Today the concept has been breached. To change the concept of the family as God-given with its promise of balance, love, service, care, solidarity, loyalty and related benefits is to change society. Commitment to the God-given tradition carries benefit for all society, benefit not found elsewhere. Current directions in society are leaning toward a mechanistic approach for individualism as the only gesture of private life that will likely serve well. The family, in right context, is a necessary cell factor to be protected in society. Certainly there are problems, but the problems of reduced family accent may be irreparable. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020