The “Shocking” Relation between Innocent Smith and Chesterton’s Jesus

During the time of the early Church, the Gospels were written in order to maintain the integrity and reality of Christ’s shocking presence here on earth. Of the many aspects depicted of Christ by the evangelists, one characteristic of Christ stands out. The Greek word θαύμα used by the evangelists, meaning “wonder” or “awe” or “astonishment,” can be found over twenty-five times within the Gospels to describe the manner of reaction from coming in contact with Christ. Whether they are his disciples, the Pharisees, the sick, the sinners, or agnostics, Jesus left people in θαύμα, in “shock.” There has been recent commentary on the shocking aspect of Jesus’ identity written by Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft which is aptly named Jesus Shock. Kreeft describes the shocking nature of Christ and how man must choose to accept this shock into their life. It is from this vein of θαύμα which G.K. Chesterton creates the character Innocent Smith in his novel Manalive. Chesterton characterizes the man Jesus in writings such as Orthodoxy, Heretics, and The Everlasting Man, as a shocking man alive. Notably, Chesterton states, “We should be shocked if we really imagined the nature of Christ” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 197). Innocent Smith, the main character of Chesterton’s Manalive, shocks and attempts to re-liven the other characters by performing actions which rattle and astonish. Although not a perfect Christ-character itself, Chesterton’s depiction of Innocent Smith throughout the novel draws from many qualities and insights that Chesterton sees in the figure of Christ: the man alive!

The first notable characteristic or image resonating in Innocent Smith from Chesterton’s writings on Jesus Christ must include his reference as a doctor. “In each case the scare was so wholesome that the victim felt that the victim himself has dated from it as a new birth. [Innocent] Smith, so far from being a madman, is rather a mad doctor—he walks the world curing frenzies and not distributing them” (Manalive Chesterton 75). Smith shocks the other characters within Manalive into realizing that their life is worth living, while treating them as the “sick”, those who need healing. Each person is boring, stale, and stagnant. To Smith, it is the bored characters who are maniacs, for they do not embrace a life worth living. In The Everlasting Man, Chesterton depicts Christ as “a strong-minded doctor dealing with homicidal maniacs” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 189). To Chesterton, Christ has come to save man from the sickness of sin. Jesus said, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners” (Luke 5:31-32). Christ desires a change of heart, lest man’s soul dies from the deathly wage of sin. Even Kreeft states, “The opposite of shock is boredom… The medievals called it sloth… [sloth] is spiritual anorexia” (Kreeft 43). Boredom, the lacking of shock, leads man to sin, a lacking of the good. Jesus came to bring shock as his main remedy. Similarly, Innocent Smith saves the lives of his “patients” through his shocking behavior by bringing them to new life.

One of the difficult quandaries which face the jury of Smith’s peers is this basic question: “Whether this [shocking] Smith is a man or a monster” (Manalive Chesterton 48). The fact that they have to explore whether Smith is real or mad demonstrates the inherent mystery of Smith’s shocking nature. Moon comments on Smith by saying, “I am by no means sure that I believe [Smith’s motives] myself, but I am quite sure that [Smith’s motives] are worth a man’s altering and defending” (Manalive Chesterton 122). Yet, the peers of Innocent Smith have only one conclusion: Smith is “really innocent” of any madness or lies (Manalive Chesterton 14). Even if someone is astonishing or wonderful, certainly their credibility will always be questioned.

In Kreeft’s Jesus Shock, it states, “Jesus-shock breaks your heart in two and forces you to choose which half of your heart you will follow” (Kreeft 41). There is no middle ground. Either Christ is a loony man or Chris is the Lord. Just as how Smith’s good intentions are questionable or mysterious, Chesterton makes the point in Orthodoxy to remark that, “If a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s” (Orthodoxy Chesterton 15). To better demonstrate Jesus’ mystical identity, Chesterton comments, “I have imagined the monster that man [Jesus] might have seemed at first to the mere nature around him” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 197). Also, Chesterton points out that, “The only explanation which immediately occurred to my mind was that Christianity did not come from Heaven, but from Hell. Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, he must have been the Antichrist” (Orthodoxy Chesterton 86). Chesterton articulates that the shocking aspect of Christ, and Innocent Smith in Manalive, needed deliberation. Once again, just because Smith, like Jesus, induces θαύμα, “shock,” does not take away his credibility as one whose mission is to re-liven the hearts and souls of his peers.

And that, too, is something Jesus and Innocent Smith hold in common: A shocking mission. Reverend Raymond Percy offers this insight to Smith: “I believe the maniac was one of those who do not merely come, but are sent; sent like a great gale upon ships by Him who made His angels wings and His messengers a flaming fire” (Manalive Chesterton 94). In The Everlasting Man, Chesterton makes note that, “Jesus displayed a divine precocity and began his mission” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 189). It is with this divine precocity and shocking methodology that Chesterton affirms Smith’s Christo-related mission: the “[shocking] Smith” holds a pistol to the head of Modern Man. But [he] shall not use it to kill him. Only to bring him to life” (Manalive Chesterton 74). Interestingly enough, Kreeft brings to light this insight into Christ’s mission here on earth: “So what did God do next? The craziest thing of all, the deed no sage, no saint.., and no devil ever dreamed of: He became a human zygote… And then He gave Himself… to our souls” (Kreeft 48).  Christ came to bring life. This wonderful parallel to Jesus can be plainly illustrated in the Gospels as well: “I came so that [man] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). This clearly shocking mission of Jesus can be seen reflected by the mission of Innocent Smith to the characters of Beacon House: bring people to a greater fullness of life through mission received from a “divine revelation.”

Jesus and Innocent Smith, the shocking men alive, are also paradoxically plain. In Heretics, Chesterton articulates that because Jesus attracted crowds as a teacher and great mind, that he appealed to every person, everyman. “This plainness,” states Chesterton, “is the note of all very great minds” (Heretics Chesterton 132). Notably, Kreeft mentions, “Everything [Jesus] does is a surprise… [Jesus] would rather be known as crazy than rational” (Kreeft 47). Because of Jesus’ refreshingly original teachings, He can effectively carry out His shocking mission. In a similar way, the characters of Beacon House describe Smith as, “a man of business, a plain, practical man: a man of affairs; a man of facts and the daylight” (Manalive Chesterton 30). The plain aspect of Smith allows him to effectively façade his shocking agenda upon those of Beacon House. Smith sees very clearly the stale and hardened hearts of the Beacon House folk, and executes the only plain act: something maniacal. Now, Smith’s very “unorthodox” methods for shock, such as shooting his friends or traveling the world just to return home again, are the epitome of his originality, his plainness. “I don’t want people to anticipate me as a well-known practical joke,” says Smith,” I want both my gifts to come virgin and violent” (Manalive Chesterton 73). By being plain, both Jesus and Innocent Smith are paradoxically shocking and original.

            Although Innocent Smith is a married man, and Jesus is explicitly not, there is still much consistent with the shocking perspective of marriage held by both Smith and Jesus. The people whom Smith encounters hold very pessimistic views of marriage. For example, Michael Moon, an Irishman who desires to woo the rich young lady Rosamund Hunt, says the following about marriage:

Imprudent marriages!... And pray where in earth or heaven are there any prudent marriages? Might as well talk about prudent suicides…. You never know a husband till you marry him. Unhappy! Of course you’ll be unhappy!... Disappointed! Of course we’ll be disappointed! (Manalive Chesterton 31)

           

The characters feel that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people who cannot keep up their ends. That is why they are unhappy; that is why they are disappointed. Their unhappiness and disappointment derive from a stale understanding of what marriage was created for. They are bored with the concept of marriage. In light of Kreeft’s concept of boredom, he states that, “Recognizing beauty is the only remedy for boredom. Beauty relieves boredom because beauty is the object of love” (Kreeft 56). Beauty is more than just an abstraction: it is a tangible object of a loving communion in the example of marriage. Now, Innocent Smith combats this decayed concept of marriage by having engaged in multiple honeymoons with the same woman under different names. Although he is charged with adultery and polygamy, such awful charges, the jury comprising of the other characters come to the conclusion that, “It is just because he does not want to commit adultery that he achieves the romance of sex; it is just because he loves one wife that he has a hundred honeymoons” (Manalive Chesterton 123). It is by love, coming into communion with his wife, that Smith shocks life into his marriage. Meanwhile, Chesterton mentions in The Everlasting Man that, “[Christ] does not suggest anything at all, except the sacramental view of marriage” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 194). Jesus calls mankind to a higher standard, living in the goodness created by God. And although Smith’s marriage is not explicitly sacramental, it is “holy” in the sense that it is set apart from other marriages for a greater good. Instead of having sex for sex’s sake, in adultery, or marrying for the sake of marrying, in polygamy, Smith does not commit adultery or polygamy so that he can better live the good of sex and the good of marriage. The shock of life injected by Smith into his marriage through faithfulness and unity also injects life into the vision of the other characters’ marriages.

Now, one of the most obvious parallels between Innocent Smith and Jesus is that they are shockingly connected to death. Jesus and Innocent Smith have this distinct and wonderful relationship to death by attaching their ministry in such a way that death becomes a spouse of these men to produce a “fecundity” of shock, of θαύμα. Chesterton describes the relationship of Jesus and death by articulating “We are meant to feel that Death was the bride of Christ as Poverty was the bride of St. Francis. We are meant to feel that His life was in that sense a sort of love-affair with death, a romance of the pursuit of the ultimate sacrifice” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 207). Chesterton recognizes that death is the ultimate sacrifice one human being can make. Jesus makes this “ultimate sacrifice” by dying on the cross for man so that he may live. Death, as the bride of Christ, is joined by Christ to produce the greatest of human gifts from God: eternal life. Once again in Kreeft’s Jesus Shock, he states that Christ’s God-nature made his death even more shocking: “This man who has nerve endings all over his body and gets hungry and tired and bloody and nailed to a cross and dies—that is the ‘holy God, holy strong one, holy immortal one,’ the eternal Word of the eternal Creator Who spoke all time and space and matter into being” (Kreeft 49). That does sound quite shocking, indeed! While Chesterton recognizes this marital connection of Jesus and Death, the fecundity produced from the relationship of Innocent Smith and Death can only be described as really shocking!

 Smith utilizes his partner, Death, to motivate the characters especially by means of wildly swaying, swinging, and shooting the pistol within close proximity of them. Dr. Eames’s encounter with Smith and his gun results in Eames exclaiming, “Do you mean to kill me?” (Manalive Chesterton 69). Eames is fearful for his life, and yet detects no remorse or reluctant movements in Smith’s pistol twirling. Instead Eames detects a crazed madman who embraces Death and wants his friends to encounter Death as well. When Inglewood asks Smith, “Why do you deal death out of that machine gun?" (Manalive Chesterton 19), Smith is not disconnected to Death, but, if anything, in a “love-affair” with Death. He works with Death, not to kill, but to bring life. Just like Jesus, Smith uses this romance with Death to give, to love, and to shock. In fact, the only time explicitly mentioned where Smith falls in love is with a woman who has provoked Death.

The uprush of [Smith’s] released optimism burst into the starts like a rocket when he suddenly fell in love. …What was worse, he found he had equally jeopardized a harmless lady alone in a rowing boat, and one who had provoked death by no professions of philosophic religion… He seems to have proposed to her on the bank. (Manalive Chesterton 93)

            It is from this unique relationship that Smith has with Death that fruitfulness and fecundity spring forth. This fruit is the shock into life other people have gained by encountering Innocent Smith and Death. This fruit can only be appreciated in light of how the other characters, such as skeptical Dr. Pym, view the importance and origin of Death. “Brighter days, however, have dawned, and we now see death as universal and inevitable, as part of that great soul-stirring and heart-upholding average which we call for convenience the order of nature,” said Pym (Manalive Chesterton 57). Dr. Pym takes for granted the importance of death during the opening of Smith’s trial. His pessimistic attitude toward death as a problematic necessity minimizes the awareness of the goodness life brings about. Death is wrong, according to Pym, because it is inevitable and ordered; it is not shocking. And yet, it is only after the trial where the characters of Beacon House realize “we have come to think certain things [death] wrong which are not wrong at all” (Manalive Chesterton 122). The ordering and inevitability of Death is not wrong: the people of Beacon House merely needed something or someone outside themselves [Smith] to shock [Death] into their souls with life. That is the most basic paradox. And that is what, according to Chesterton, Jesus Christ did.

            Jesus shocks life into humanity by His very act of death. Chesterton brings this to light by articulating, “With [the death of Christ] we come face to face with the essential fact to be realized. All the great groups that stood about the Cross represent, in one way or another, the great historical truth of the time; that the world could not save itself. Man could do no more” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 210). Just as how the world is dead without Jesus’ self-sacrifice upon the Cross, so too does the world of Innocent Smith lack any vivacity, ambition, or energy. It takes such a man alive, full of θαύμα, to awaken these people from their slumber. They need him. For, at the beginning of Manalive, Diana Duke asks, “What is there to wake up to?” (Manalive Chesterton 28). Kreeft can point toward an answer: “Joy. Joy always includes surprise, sometimes even shock” (Kreeft 45). Smith’s shocking nature and mission demonstrates the fullest answer: Duke and the rest of the characters must be shocked into life before they die.

Finally, both Innocent Smith and Jesus are the teachers of shock. Both give instruction interpersonally. For, it is only when persons are directly addressed do they change their hearts and minds. Especially in Raymond Percy’s letter, Innocent Smith says, “Until a pistol-barrel was poked under their very noses they never even knew they had been born. For ages looking up an eternal perspective it might be true that life is a learning to die. But for these little white rats it was just as true that death was their only chance of learning to live” (Manalive Chesterton 92). The characters of Beacon House are taught how to live, being shocked by death, through the original and novel teaching style of Smith. On the other hand, Chesterton describes Christ as a great teacher by having the “habit of assuming [His] point of view to be one which was human and casual, one which would readily appeal to every passing man” (Heretics Chesterton 132). Jesus, the great teacher, used such commonplace methods of teaching, such as parables, to illustrate His shocking truths. Kreeft notes that, “Christ teaches us joy… but [sometimes] we don’t listen” (Kreeft 65). The reason Jesus and Innocent Smith appeal to every man is due, once again, to their “shock”, their θαύμα. Although not every man is changed by this shock, like Dr. Warner for Innocent Smith or the Pharisees for Jesus, every man must admit that they had to either re-affirm their hard hearts or accept an invitation to new life. That is why Kreeft says, “Those who meet Jesus always experience either joy or its opposites, either foretastes of Heaven or foretastes of Hell. Not everyone who meets Jesus is pleased, and not everyone is happy, but everyone is shocked” (Kreeft 45). Jesus gives an opportunity for life to those who accept his shocking teaching. For Jesus teaches, “I am… the Life. Anyone who believes in me shall not die, but live forever” (John 11:25).

Both Jesus and Innocent Smith share many similar characteristics, using methods by which those people whom they encounter can only describe as shocking. The Gospels describe Jesus by using the word θαύμα, for his “wonderfulness” was recognized by all. Even Peter Kreeft’s book Jesus Shock offers evidence to support Chesteton’s thoughts on how shocking and wonderful Christ is. In the depiction of Innocent Smith, Chesterton plainly states: His creed of [shock] was Christian (Manalive Chesterton 92). Although not Jesus Christ himself, Innocent Smith does bring to flesh the “wonder and awe,” the θαύμα aspect of Jesus Christ. As a teacher, doctor, missionary, and lover, Smith’s figure is Jesus’ reflection, a “man alive” shocking life into a people of stagnancy.  

The Art of Teaching: The Method

             Within the preface for The Art of Teaching, Gilbert Highet includes that, “Teaching is not like inducing a chemical reaction: it is much more like painting a picture or making a piece of music, or… like planting a garden or writing a friendly letter.” And, although there are certain prescribed characteristics of “good teaching”, there is no such thing as a scientific method for teaching—instead there is a “teaching method.” Highet includes two essential components for a successful method of teaching—preparation and fixing the impression.

            The first stage of methodical teaching includes a preparation of the subject. Of course, no successful teacher cannot prepare for a class (note: double negative). Contrapositively, therefore, only a successful teacher prepares for a class. Now, preparation of a class includes three vital sections: a broad explanation of the class material’s importance, maintaining a firm grasp on contemporary issues pertaining to the class’s material, and an outline of anticipated material to be covered during the class. Highet warns, however, “A teacher who maps out his course badly, and neither sees where he is going nor tells his class what to expect, usually fails because he does not quite command his material” (147).

            Many times, a teacher will begin class by “diving right into the material.” Students, however, remain bewildered as to the subject’s importance or relevance to his life—much less the subject itself. During my senior year in high school, my Calculus teacher neglected to tell me what a “derivative” was. I spent the whole first semester calculating derivatives, not knowing what they were or why they were important to the subject of Calculus. Had he simply said, “A derivative is a slope of a function,” on the first day of class, I would have understood Calculus with greater clarity—and perhaps received a better grade. Even Highet mentions that, “[A teacher] must explain [the subject], allow its merits to display themselves, fill in a suitable background” (73).

            Next, Highet emphasizes that, “teaching the same old stuff year after year,” should be, “avoided at all costs by every good teacher” (81). Because most subjects are “living subjects”—meaning that information or perspectives change on the subjects over time—a teacher ought to grow and live along with the subject. In particular, teaching requires assimilation of contemporary issues relevant and pertinent to the subject—for fear that a student refers to the class as monotony. Even Highet exclaims, “Monotony in teaching is a fault” (81)!       

            Now, by constructing an outline of expected material to be covered during the semester, the students gain a better understanding of interconnectedness with respect to the subject. Also, an outline provides an adequate pacemaker—and just like a heart’s pacemaker, regulates the “beat” of the class—creating both expectations for the teacher and students. For, with a class outline, the class gains a purpose—and can visibly see its design for an end. Even Highet articulates that, “One of the aids to learning is the sense of purpose. One of [purpose’s] chief rewards is the sense of achievement” (69).

            Highet makes note of historically successful educators—the Jesuit Order. Although Highet comes from a secular university (i.e. Columbia), he recognizes the Jesuit perfection of “fixing the impression.” One word, coined by the Jesuits, can sufficiently create an impressionable mark upon a student—repeat, repeat, repeat! (cf. 148) As a student who has experienced Jesuit education, I can attest to the effectiveness of the “repeat” strategy. For, the Jesuits “watch carefully and vary his questions to ensure that there is nothing mechanical about this repetition, but then urge once more repeat and once more repeat” (148). Obviously, repetition imprints the information upon a student’s mind and, in turn, remains readily available due to retention.

            Hopefully, a teacher aspires to more than just giving information to his students. As Highet alludes, the methods of a teacher ought to bring a classroom into a “joint enterprise of a group of friendly human beings who like using their brains” (153)—for this is what Highet describes as the “best type of teaching.”

The Art of Teaching: Bridge Building

           According to Gilbert Highet, The Art of Teaching was named such because, “I believe that teaching is an art, not a science… You must throw your heart into [teaching], you must realize that it cannot all be done by formulas.” There, then, seems one aspect of Highet’s teaching method which differentiates from a scientific method—the human personality. It is one thing to build a bridge by constructing mathematical formulas and correlating those formulas to the material, however, there is such an admiration for beauty in visionary design meant for a greater aesthetic value than merely a formula. Highet advocates creative “bridge-building” by integrating the human person with the teaching method.

            First of all, Highet describes the most vital attribute of a good teacher—knowing the subject. What good is there for a teacher who knows the same amount of information, if not less, than his students? Simply, there is none. Knowing the subject also means keeping tabs upon current growth in the subject and continually gaining knowledge pertaining to the subject. Now, Highet poses the question—“Why can a teacher not simply learn the rudiments of the subject, master them thoroughly, and then stop?” (13). The best answer to this is: one cannot understand the rudiments of an important subject without knowing its higher levels.

            Now, how does knowing the subject relate to bridge-building? Without knowing how to build a bridge, one cannot build a bridge. There is no direction for which the bridge to start or stop, there is no knowledge of needed materials for building, and one knows not the purpose of the bridge! In the same way, without knowing a subject, there is nothing a teacher can give to a student—no direction, information, or purpose. Highet articulates, “The neglect of [knowing the subject] is one of the chief reasons for the bad teaching that makes pupils hate schools and universities” (14).

            Now, Highet proceeds to discuss a second important characteristic, quite related to the first—liking the subject which one teaches. Now liking a subject does not mean liking all of a subject, but how trusting would one be of a doctor who disliked medicine? In the same parallel, liking the subject means a continued interest and total immersion in topics pertaining to the subject—even Highet proclaims, “If you do enjoy the subject, it will be easy to teach even when you are tired, and delightful when you are feeling fresh” (20).

            The way a teacher “builds a bridge” between the students and the information requires mastery of especially contemporary knowledge. He is the architect who knows the recent advances in engineering while also maintaining the aesthetic integrity and beauty of the bridge. Highet asserts that, “A wise teacher will choose particular areas of his subject which he believes will be both interesting and illuminating, and will find that his increasing knowledge of them will give him a sense of mastery” (24). By keeping interested, the teacher also peaks the interest of his students—and, in turn, increases their ability to retain information.

            Highet addresses the final mark of a good teacher—knowing and liking his students. He notes how, “The good teacher feels that same flow of energy [from the youth], constantly supplied by the young” (27). He admits, however, that there are some devil youths—whom he names as “eccentrics.” If anything, Highet encourages an impersonal relationship with these students—for fear that they would “explode” (42). But, by knowing the students, whether they are eccentric, viscerotonic (pleasure-drive), somatotonic (image-driven), or cerebrotonic (thought-driven),  the teacher can better design the bridge over the gap* between the students and information.

            Highet explicitly mentions two functions of the teacher—which distinguishes him from a business man or the likes. The first function includes, “Making a bridge between school or college and the world” (49). That means the teacher makes whatever subject to be taught—whether be Latin, Theology, or Mathematics— relatable and applicable to contemporary society, and having students recognize that respective subject in their daily lives. Secondly, the teacher must, “Make a bridge between youth and maturity” (52). This is the ability to structure the class to access the students’ youthful energy while not allowing frivolity to ensue.

            Finally, Highet makes the statement, “Difficult though this bridge-building between two worlds may be, it is possible; it is necessary; it is done by the best teachers” (52). Obviously there is more to teaching than lesson plans and subject matter—just as how bridge-building requires more than just a knowledge of mathematics, engineering, and architecture. The best bridge-builders are artists (e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge). In a similar way, the best teachers are also artists, infusing their souls and hearts into teaching.

The Intellectual Life (Chapter 3-5 Summary)

        The Jesuit Order is one of the most influential Catholic orders of religious vocations in the world. They are known for many charisms—one, however, best summarizes A.G. Sertillanges’s commentary on the intellectual life—“Finding God in All Things.” Although Sertillanges was not a Jesuit (he was a Dominican), his The Intellectual Life surely overflows with encouragement for alertness to God’s beautiful creation, goodness, and truth.

            Beginning chapter three, Sertillanges reaffirms that “the intellectual life” is a vocation—a calling from God to direct one’s life. And yet, he directly applies this vocation in context of another vocation—Christian Marriage. Among his many assertions concerning the married life, Sertillanges includes, “[a wife] can produce much by helping her husband produce…consoling him for his disappointments… soothing his sorrows… being his sweet reward after his labors” (Sertillanges 45). The wife ought to support the husband in his vocation, for that is her vocation in the marital relationship. Living in a Christo-centric relationship reveals God’s true presence.

            Another way that Sertillanges offers the intellectual worker a glimpse into God’s presence includes Solitude. “Solitude enables you to make contact with yourself, a necessity if you want to realize yourself—not to repeat like a parrot a few acquired formulas, but to be the prophet of the God within you who speaks a unique language to each man” (Sertillanges 50). Certainly, Sertillanges suggests that within this prayer-state God grants the intellectual true inspiration. Sertillanges warns, however, “By carrying the cult of silence too far, one would reach the silence of death” (Sertillanges 63). For, a body motionless too long gets atrophy—in the same sense, silence and solitude must be balanced with intellectual work. Ultimately, articulates Sertillanges, the Truth (found in Jesus Christ) must be the intellectual’s final goal or end.

            Because truth must be the goal of the intellectual, he must keep every eye out in observance for truth. Interestingly enough, the truth is everywhere—as long as one keeps looking.

Truth is commoner than articles of furniture. It cries out in the streets and does not turn its back on us when we turn our backs on it. Ideas emerge from facts; they also emerge from conversations, chance occurrences, theatres, visits, strolls, the most ordinary books. Everything holds treasures, because everything is in everything, and a few laws of life and of nature govern the rest. (Sertillanges 73).

What a better exemplification of “Finding God in All Things!” The alertness of truth must be the greatest attribute of the intellectual—for without alertness, the intellectual falls into a mind of a “commonplace man” (cf. Sertillanges 74).

            Rich Mullins, a notable Christian musician, once said that he first invited Christ into his life at the age of four by singing, “Into my heart, into my heart, come Lord Jesus, into my heart.” In a similar way, Sertillanges alludes to the importance of inviting Christ into the intellectual’s life. “Children are taught ‘to give their hearts to God’; the intellectual, a child in that respect, must in addition give his heart to the truth” (Sertillanges 88). Throughout chapters three, four, and five, Sertillanges gives examples of how to allow God into the intellectual’s life: The Mass (cf. 90), Prayer (cf. 89), and studying Theology (cf. 110).

            Sertillanges finishes by asserting that studying Theology supersedes all other fields of study, because it is from Theology that all other subjects flow. “The sciences and philosophy without theology discrown themselves more lamentably, since the crown they repudiate is a heavenly one” (Sertillanges 107). Historically, great thinkers like Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibnitz were “renaissance men” because they broadened their field of study, or as Sertillanges would describe, a “Comparative study” (Sertillanges 102)— linking their studies to general philosophy and theology. For, “Theology has inserted a divine graft into the tree of knowledge, thanks to which this tree can bear fruits that are not its own” (Sertillanges 110). Overall, all other subjects, fields, and areas of study serve the purpose of supporting Theology—the study of God and His presence in man’s life.

In recognizing the truth of one’s life, the intellectual will surely “Find God in All Things.” The intellectual must remember this important maxim provided by Sertillanges—“The half-informed man is not the man who knows only half of things, but the man who only half knows things” (Sertillanges 122).

The Intellectual Life

            “I would put The Intellectual Life on the desk of every serious, and most of the unserious ones,” claims Fr. James Schall, SJ in his Foreword (Sertillanges xiii). Although Fr. Schall includes a humorous tone to his overall perception of The Intellectual Life, nevertheless he stresses and strains throughout the Foreword about the book’s importance and vitality to the life of an intellectual, much less a Catholic intellectual. Now, Fr. Schall, SJ is a professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown University. He realizes the wisdom of thought and how it affects the way people execute political agendas and persuade others. Notably, Fr. Schall’s significance of endorsement alludes to the fact that the reader ought to realize how much of a positive effect this book encloses between its paper covers. Even more so, Fr. Schall claims, “[The Intellectual Life] will have an abiding, concrete effect on our lives” (Sertillanges xiv).

            According to Schall, The Intellectual Life’s most astounding characteristic comprises in truth. Whether it is the truth about applicable study habits, effective note-taking, organization skills, or moral truths, Schall notes that, “[Sertillanges] does not hesitate to warn us of the intimate relation between our knowing the truth and our not ordering our souls to the good” (Sertillanges xii). Significantly, Schall makes continual references to how The Intellectual Life supersedes and transcends the times —“This book allows us… to know why we need not be dependent on the media…” (Sertillanges xiii). Just as how truth remains truth regardless of times and customs, so too, articulates Schall, does The Intellectual Life— this book “allows [the reader] to be free [from the times]” (Sertillanges xiii).

            Vocation comes from Latin word “voco” meaning “to call.” Therefore, it follows that a vocation translates to a calling—usually defining one’s purpose in life. According to Sertillanges, a vocation more specifically, “comes from heaven and from our first nature” (Sertillanges 4). God plays an immense role in defining our purpose—from making us in his image, imago Dei, to revealing Himself in everyday life, and during mankind’s experience for coming to know ultimate truth. “If we are here, it is because God has placed us here” (Sertillanges 14). Our purpose totally and wholly depends upon God’s will and desire for us in our life. Although, it is our free will that, at times, gets in the way for answering our vocation, or call, to be effective intellectuals. And yet, this free will, articulates Sertillanges, is the most vital attribute and characteristic of being a human person—“[the will] is the most important thing!” (Sertillanges 10).

Not surprisingly, Sertillanges’s featured common virtues for intellectual workers can be summarized by the three Theological Virtues: Love, Faith, and Hope. “Tell me what you love, I will tell you what you are” (Sertillanges 19). Ultimately, as Catholic intellectual workers, love must be appropriately placed toward the desire of the Truth—namely Jesus Christ. The Jesuits have a phrase— “Finding God in all things.” Namely, God reveals himself through ultimate truth, and by using the intellect out of love for the Truth, the intellectual worker finds God—more than what he was expecting!

 Faith flows from a deep trust that the intellect will not fail, even if it seemingly cannot reveal fully the truth at any one given time. Sertillanges asserts, “One has no faith in jewel merchants who sell pearls and wear none” (Sertillanges 18). Yet, Jesus Christ claims the truth and, according to Dr. Peter Kreeft—a philosopher at Boston College—Jesus revealed new himself as more Truth—leaving his followers thaumazō “to wonder.” Jesus fulfilled this truth gained through the faith in intellect inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is the trustworthy, faithful provider of The Truth.

And from this faith, Hope clings on to the promise of Christ that the Truth will be fully revealed. Once again, “By practicing the truth that we know, we merit the truth that we do not yet know. We merit it in the sight of God…when we pay homage by living the truth of life” (Sertillanges 19). In essence, the fullness of God’s truth in our lives will be gained when Christ comes again, during the parousia. This will only be gained, however, if we practice the truth, and live in the Truth— “the Truth is God” (Sertillanges 30)!

Ultimately, Sertillanges connects all studious virtues to flow from the Truth revealed with the help of the three Theological virtues. Whether it be through concrete note-taking, sufficient sleep patterns, or prudent interest in knowledge, the intellectual must remember this important maxim provided by Sertillanges—“To accept ourselves as we are is to obey God and to make sure of good results” (Sertillanges 28).

Brave New World: A Catholic Perspective

Pope Paul VI promulgated the Gaudium et Spes, formally known as the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, which was released in the December of 1965. This document, published just after the Vatican II Council, refocused the Catholic Church’s view on the contemporary Christian way of life. From within its culmination, Gaudium et Spes points out, “Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness”(Gaudium et Spes 17). It goes on to say, “ Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly…often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing what pleases them, even if it is evil”(Gaudium et Spes 17). This aspect spoke volumes concerning man’s human dignity, free will, and enticement of hubris. On the contrary, thirty-four years prior, Aldous Huxley wrote a novel, Brave New World, which contradicted and perverted the future Vatican’s vision of mankind. Overall, Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, vehemently contradicts Catholicism’s teachings concerning society, happiness, and the human condition.


Huxley’s assault originates from the beginning of the novel, setting the stage for the rest of the imaginative yet fictitious novel. The opening chapters contain a glimpse of Huxley’s controversial social structure: Over the main entrance [of the thirty-four story
building] the words, CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE, and in a shield, the World State’s motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY (Huxley). On the contrary, the Gaudium et Spes responds by articulating, “He [man] strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community through improvement of customs and institutions” (Gaudium et Spes 53)

The term family, mother, father, son, and daughter in Brave New World are looked upon as blasphemy. When Tomakin reunites with Linda and John [the Savage], his ex-girlfriend and bastard child respectively, he is mercilessly ridiculed for having an exclusive wife and especially an illegitimate son (Huxley 152). Overcome with embarrassment as the Director of Human Conditioning, he immediately resigns from his post. The stability structure of a family dynamic is social taboo because a family is deemed too unstable to properly raise a child. By and large, a family violates the stability element of the World State’s motto. It seems fitting that the Catholic Church stands with an inverse perspective:

The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which a husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society (Catechism 2207).

From this passage, it is shown that the Catholic Church stands firm on the ideal of a strong familial base for the benefit of both person and society. Both stances on stability and freedom held on the Catholic Church implicitly suggest contradiction between itself and Huxley’s Brave New World. Naturally, Brave New World maliciously assaults the beauty of the Catholic Church’s vision for a supportive, caring, and loving family.


The Catholic Church holds a firm stance on how the human person is to be treated even before birth, including chromosomal specifications. Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but aimed at human beings selected to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity, which are unique and unrepeatable (Catechism 2419).


Instead of a family setting, Brave New World’s society originates from the designing of hatcheries and conditioning cells of human beings. A technique called the Bokanovsky’s Process allows for a series of arrests of development, checking normal growth, and egg responds by budding (Huxley 4). Tomakin, the Director of Human Conditioning, considers it to be one of the major instruments of social stability. The mass production of humans stemmed from the assembly line, an idea invented by Henry Ford in the first decade of the 1900s.

Ford’s Model-T car was produced at such a high rate that by it’s peak in production, over half of the new cars in the world were Model-T Fords. Huxley considered Henry Ford an integral part of the creation in Brave New World. Admired for his humility toward his empowerment of thousands of workers during the early 20th century, Ford said, ““I invented nothing new…to teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense”(Collier 9). The introduction of Ford’s model-T was chosen as the opening date of the new era, Anno Ford (The Year of Our Ford). Because of how Henry Ford allowed for the success of so many people working under his new assembly line, he was motivated knowing, “If they weren’t working, they’d be scrounging for a buck here or there, or on relief. Maybe both. Relief carries with it no dignity, no pride. These men can hold their heads up…” (Collier 142). Huxley found Ford to be so empowering for the people of his time that Huxley attributed Ford with a god-like aura within BNW. For everything that has to do with God is forbidden, only Ford is important. “A whole collection of pornographic books. God is in the safe and Ford on the shelves” (Huxley 211).

Once again, Huxley’s parody of Ford’s amazing achievement perverts the true God, the Lord. Huxley cleverly replaces the word of Lord in Christianity with Ford. In Brave New World, the people worship Ford just as God is worshipped by the faithful of a community. For according to the community, “people who have never heard of Ford are uncivilized” (Huxley 98). Huxley’s mockery of Christianity extended as far as making “the sign of the T” instead of making a sign of the cross as well as “all crosses having their tops cut and became T’s” (Huxley 134). The Catholic Church makes a point of expressing Jesus’ divinity and kingship with these simple words: That man is rightly called a king who makes his own body an obedient subject and, by governing himself with suitable rigor, refuses to let his passions breed rebellion in his soul for he exercises a kind of royal power over himself. And because he knows how to rule his own person as king, so too does he sit as its judge. He will not let himself be imprisoned by sin, or thrown headlong into wickedness. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men (Catechism 2275).

Cumulatively, the Church states that because Jesus is perfect in every way and has gained us salvation through dying on a cross, He is the ultimate judge, standard, and royalty. As a result, it is Jesus, and only Jesus, who should be hailed as God.

Since God and Christianity were eliminated by this BNW, the community had to look to other ways to satiate their spiritual hunger. By Anno Ford 184, a hallucinogen named soma was being produced commercially. It was said to have “All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects” (Huxley 54). Soma practically assured the stability of the society while providing a “holiday” from reality whenever a person desired, and coming back without any side effects. And yet again, on the contrary, the Catholic Church calls to mind temperance and respect of body through drugs, stating: [Drugs] constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law (Catechism 2291). Brave New World’s encouragement of drugs as an attempt to rid the emotions and feelings of society sharply conflict with the Church’s teaching.

To prevent humans from experiencing nature or creation, Brave New World conditioned them by associating books with loud noises and flowers with electronic shocks (Huxley 17). The conditioned people went into “conditioning rooms” where they would be shown images, such as a book, and shocked instantly upon the sight of the book. The concept of human conditioning stemmed from the experiment conducted by 1860s Russian scientist Ian Pavlov. Pavlov trained dogs to salivate at the presence of stimuli having nothing to do with a natural cause of salivation. Pavlov had noticed that for salivation to occur, it was not actually necessary for food to enter an animal’s mouth. Ultimately, Pavlov came to the conclusion that animals, even humans, could be trained to respond to unusual stimuli, such as salivating to a bell. After he came to this conclusion, he asked, “Does not the eternal sorrow of life consist in the fact that human beings cannot understand one another, that one person cannot enter into the internal state of another?” (Johnson 121-137).
The Catholic Church disagrees that a human ought to sacrifice his or her free will for the “good” of society. “Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts,” articulates the Catholic Church (Gaudium et Spes 77). Man’s rationality creates his beauty to choose for himself- his rationality implies a freedom. By conditioning human beings, Brave New World’s society manufactures nothing more than slaves to accomplish the will of a select few of the hierarchical society. Implicitly, Brave New World attacks not only the people, but also the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Man’s greatest search has always been the journey towards a perfect, fulfilling happiness. Brave New World offers an intriguing and controversial option pertaining to the attainment of happiness. Certainly, every society’s goal is to be happy, but Brave New World held a controversial corollary, “The secret of happiness and virtue- liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny”(Huxley 244). Brave New World believed conditioning people so that their free will will not interfere with “society’s happiness is also the individual’s happiness. Their argument says that, “People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get,” (Huxley 278) and this is beautifully illustrated throughout Brave New World- for the conditioning they institute direct the people only to desire what society can give them, thus satisfying their needs and a satiating a hunger for happiness. On the contrary, the Catholic Church holds the following stance: Happiness is the attainment of comprehensive human fulfillment.
For Christians, happiness is only attained through union with God, which is the consequence of grace…For Catholic belief, happiness consists in an encounter with the perfect Persons of the Divine Three, and because this understanding of human happiness emphasizes the love, intelligence and personal character of happiness with God, it possesses some distinct advantages to the teachings of other religions and philosophical systems (Gaudium et Spes 34).

The Catholic Church unquestionably supports the beauty of human love, intelligence, and personality in relation to how humans are to be happy. Since Brave New World limits human’s ability of free will- specifically how to love, choose, and think independently, it stifles man’s inner desire to be “free”- attacking not only man, but also the Catholic Church.

Dr. Michael Pennock, former Saint Ignatius High School Theology teacher and nationally renowned theological writer, asserts, “The playboy/ playgirl mentality is irresponsible because it totally ignores one of the aims of sexual activity: the sharing of life,” in his book concerning Catholic morality Your Life In Christ (Pennock 226). It is the position that the Catholic Church stands firm behind, “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to the spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such” (Pennock 227).
Sharing life arouses the beauty in the human person’s sexuality. Brave New World contends a different view of sexuality. Lenina, a main character in Brave New World shows her influence of conditioning and a lack of care towards her sexuality by stating, “Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today” (Huxley 149). She is insensitive towards her sexuality, using it as an object and way to have “fun” while continually disregarding her irresponsibility to her dignity and person. Interestingly enough, Sigmund Freud, world-renowned psychologist and psychotherapist, wrote that work could provide some of the pleasure that, in a less restrictive culture, would be found in sex (Kramer 144).

Freud’s description of that type of culture, surrounded by constant sexual innuendos throughout work and leisure, seems supported by BNW. For it is stated multiple times throughout the novel, “Everyone belongs to everyone else” (Huxley 77). BNW disrespects the people of its society by encouraging erratic and irresponsible sexual behavior, which harms the dignity and worth of each person. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, along with other writings, hold firm the Catholic Church’s teachings concerning human being’s free will, dignity, social structure, and religion. Because BNW seemingly perfectly contradicts the Catholic Church on numerous issues, BNW unreservedly and explicitly exposes direct contradictions towards the Church and her teachings for the goodness of society. It seems fitting that BNW is a book banned by many schools throughout the country, especially those of Catholic endorsement.

The Bat Comes To Me

The conversion of St. Paul literally knocked him off his horse. The conversion of St. Ignatius of Loyola severely broke his leg. My conversion story, with the hopes of a path to sainthood, however, almost left me with a fractured skull. Although it seemed a minor experience at the time, it has been since the incident that I have matured in my faith and spiritual growth. Little did I know how the “The Bat Coming To Me” would change who I am.

The experience began on a pleasant September morning. I hurriedly ran into my Sophomore Morality class, for fear I would be late. Astutely, I took my seat just in time before the period bell rang. Music played in the background. The period bell rang. The music stopped. The entire class looked around. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a red-haired man in a lopsided faux-hawk emerged from the shadowy corner of the classroom—with a wooden baseball bat.

Mr. Vilinsky, my morality teacher, bounded onto his desk and swung the bat like a madman. “This is a fuzzy pool noodle!” he exclaimed. He jumped down, momentarily staring at the entire class with crazy, wild eyes. “[J.A.], I don’t care what you say.” He raced across the room to my desk. “Don’t believe me, it feels the same as a fuzzy pool noodle!” Without knowing what was going on, I felt— Bam! Mr. Vilinsky slammed the bat down onto my desk. I felt the breeze of the wood come so close to my face I could smell the maple. Then he threw the bat against the wall. It splintered into dozens of pieces, just like major league baseball bats do. One of the pieces of bat flew toward my face. I ducked just in time to miss one of the most painful splinters of my life. Clearly this was not a fuzzy pool noodle.

Even though Mr. Vilinsky apologized for the accidental breaking of his baseball bat, I was still severely shaken up from the whole ordeal. He went on to explain that our minds do not create reality themselves, but reality reveals truth to our minds. The baseball bat was still the baseball bat, no matter how badly Mr. Vilinsky had wanted it to be a fuzzy pool noodle. It was the first time that I had ever thought about how truth affected my life—how it literally came flying at me in the face. Appropriately enough the lesson plan was named “The Bat Comes To Me.”

Since then, I have truly attempted to delve deep into my faith, going on multiple retreats, reading books by renown Christian authors such as C.S. Lewis and St. Thomas Aquinas, and being actively involved in my youth group. All of these things and more I have done in pursuit of God’s revealing truth in my life. Sometimes it just takes a flying baseball bat towards your noggin to light a spark. I would not have had it any other way.

Flying On Eagles Wings

Gerald Ford, Neil Armstrong, Michael Bloomberg, and Frank Parater hold one common link—all four men have earned the rank of Eagle Scout. Over the past century, Eagle Scouts have earned a reputation for service, virtue, and leadership that is recognized worldwide. Attaining my Eagle Scout rank, however, almost never happened. When I was a fifth grader, a friend dared to be different and reached out to me. His act of charity inspired me to eventually earn my Eagle Scout and dare to be different through my leadership.

The experience began on a brisk, chilly June morning. I hurriedly ran to the waterfront at summer camp, for fear I would be late. Taking off my glasses, I arrived just in time for my Swimming merit badge class. Marking my attendance, the instructor told me to jump into the frigid, murky lake. I plunged in. The class continued. Just as it ended, I nonchalantly bounded over to the landing area to dry off. When I arrived there, I began searching for my glasses.

Feeling around, literally blind, I could not find my glasses. My heart sank. On only the second day away from my parents, I had lost my glasses. I panicked. How was I supposed to do all the cooking, washing, and overall camping of scouting without seeing? I asked the instructor if anyone had turned in a pair of glasses. Nothing. I somehow managed to find my way back to camp. There, I crawled into my tent-- embarrassed, homesick, scared, and overcome with emotion. My sightless eyes cried tears of despair. I no longer desired to be in scouts. Scouting took away my sight. Overhearing my uncontrollable sobs, the oldest scout in our troop came over to my tent and asked what seemed to be the problem.

DW Cashman, Senior Patrol Leader and future Eagle Scout of my Boy Scout troop, eventually coaxed me out my tent. Even more self-conscious that the oldest scout in the troop had caught me vulnerable, I explained to him, while huffing and puffing, about my missing glasses. He walked with me to the camp office to see if anyone had turned in a pair of glasses. Still nothing. On the hike back to our campsite, he reassured me that I would find my glasses and I would be just fine. Then, DW handed me something dense. I squinted at it hard before realizing what it was.

As I drank from the camp-contraband root beer bottle, I calmed down and began to loosen up. DW had reached out to me and treated me as a friend. His kindness and selfless giving restored my faith in Scouting. Throughout the week, he persistently checked up on me, making sure I was all right in spite of my sightlessness. Even though I never found my glasses, DW helped me to see—to see how a minor act of love in action could play a major role of inspiration. He is the reason I stayed in Scouting.

When I turned eighteen on December 1st, 2009, I finished my Scouting tenure with nearly 150 nights of camping, twenty-six merit badges, over two hundred hours of scouting service projects, surviving a week in the wilderness of Maine, canoeing over 150 miles in eight days on an Ohio River tributary, earning the rank of Eagle Scout, while holding both the second highest and highest leadership ranks in scouting, respectively—Assistant Senior Patrol Leader and Senior Patrol Leader. These accomplishments are enough to fill an impressive résumé. Ironically enough, the proudest and yet most humbling moments of mine will never show up on my Scouting résumé. These accomplishments would be futile without purpose; without meaning; without action—and ultimately without love.

During a November scout meeting, a young scout named Billy, upon hearing I was leaving due to scouting age restrictions, embraced me and nearly began to cry on my shirt. He said, “[J.A.], please don’t leave! Why do you have to? I don’t want you to leave. You are my friend.” That indescribable moment of humility poignantly touched my heart. “This is what scouting and life is all about,” I said to myself later that night. I had reached out and made a positive difference in Billy’s life—not by merely being a leader, but a friend. Mr. Oren Youngstein, my scoutmaster with over thirty years of scouting experience, told me at my last camp, “[J.A.], you know what makes you different than every other Senior Patrol Leader I’ve had? You care.”

Those two moments characterize the personal difference just one teenager can make. By daring to be different, scouting has defined my altruistic, charitable, and personal leadership. As President Jimmy Carter once said, “Eagle Scouts will inspire to become leaders in serving others.” Sometimes it takes losing your sight to see those around you who need a difference in their life. This is who I am and contributes to the person I will become. I would not have learned and lived this any other way.

Making Sense Out of God Part 1-- A Socratic Dialogue With An Unbeliever

Reader: You claim to prove the existence of God?

Author: No, I do not claim to prove the existence of God. I only claim that choosing God makes the most sense. I say that there is enough evidence to suggest plausibility for belief in God.

Reader: So, what you’re telling me is that this God-thing is not definite? You cannot be sure?

Author: Can you be sure of anything, really and truly down to the core? Of course not. We get to a certain point within our human reason where there is a given, something granted by its very nature. We take that on faith.

Reader: Faith. Curious you should use that term concerning the most important belief which defines your whole human existence. People have faith in a lot of things: in school systems, politicians, Santa Claus, or in workout exercises. Faith in God is silly—shouldn’t your most innate belief/desire revolve around something that is 100% certain or sure?

Author: Again I answer, when is everything certain? Even certain scientific principles grant degrees of uncertainty or variability.

Reader: True. But science does not define your religion—your God does. Where does your God exist? Surely, we cannot see Him, touch Him, or hear Him.

Author: Well of course you cannot see Him, touch Him, or hear Him. He exists outside of the universe.

Reader: Then there’s no evidence for Him! Ha! Proved your entire premise wrong!

Author: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Take this for example: In a painting, do you see the painter? No. Well, not usually. But, in a painting, you do see the effects of the painter—the painter’s brush strokes, the color the painter used, the design of the painter’s mind. God is the painter; He has created the world, and you can find the effects of God in the world.

Reader: Really? So the effects… such as… pain, suffering, evil, hatred, envy, spite, war, holocausts, fighting, and the likes are the effects of God. I don’t want to believe in a God that creates such an evil world. I mean, who would?

Author: Ahhh the old problem of evil. I’m quite surprised you brought that point up so early in our conversation. Your question of how can God exist and still allow evil in the world—two words: Free Will.

Reader: Free Will? Wait a minute… are you blaming human beings for the reason that evil exists in the world?

Author: Actually, yes. We are the reason there is evil in the world—it began in the Bible, the Holy Book Catholics believe in, where man chose to not choose God—by choosing evil.

Reader: OK. But I don’t believe in the Catholic Bible.

Author: Fair enough, but you did ask how I can believe in God. Well, how about someone you can trust.

Reader: Who? I’m well read in philosophy.

Author: How about G.K. Chesterton?

Reader: Well, I know he’s smart, but that’s all…

Author: The London Times had asked a number of writers for essays on the topic “What’s Wrong with the World?” Chesterton’s reply is the shortest and most to the point:

                                    Dear Sirs,

                                    I am.

                                                Sincerely Yours,

                                                G.K. Chesterson

Reader: Hmmm so what you’re suggesting is that I’m the one to blame for the world’s evil?

Author: Precisely. We all are. Collectively as a human race.

Reader: Ok. Well that’s all nice and good, but what about us believing in God because He is just some nice concept. We are comforted by the thought of a God, of eternal life, easing our consciences. Isn’t belief in God something that we ought to have grown out of before or during adolescence—like belief in Santa. As we get older, we don’t need a nice thought to comfort us unless we are immature in thought. I won’t believe in a God that is just some nice thought created by us at a young age to comfort us. Just like Santa, belief should dissipate.

Author: Gee it seems like you just keep bashing belief in Santa Claus. Neither here nor there, belief in God as a nice projection of the mind sounds oddly like a thought directly from Ludwig Feuerbach. He believed that mankind ought to “grow up” and realize that saying, “God is love” merely projects man’s desire to love; saying “God is morally perfect” merely projects man’s desire to be moral.

Reader: Yeah, actually, I told you I did a lot of reading. Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity rings true!

Author: Dare I ask if you’ve heard of C.S. Lewis?

Reader: Ah, yes. I’ve read all of his Chronicles of Narnia series. He is quite the engaging author.

Author: Well, Lewis believed that all natural desires of man corresponded to something real. Let me read you a bit of it from his work entitled Mere Christianity:

                                    Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water.  Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

Reader: So, what you’re saying is…

Author: Yes, that’s right. The natural desire and longing within the depths of your heart resides from the fact that you were created to be filled by God—and nothing else can fill that void.

Reader: But, what about the desire to be a supermodel? Or the desire to fight aliens? Or the desire to be Superman? How about those desires? Obviously those cannot be easily fulfilled.

Author: And you are exactly correct! Those cannot be easily fulfilled because they are not natural. Every human being during every time has hungered—thus food; thirst—drink; sexual desire—well, there’s sexual experiences. Every man during every day and age has believed in some sort of “higher power.” Whether they believe it or not, human beings desire God. The desire to be Superman, to fight aliens or to be a supermodel are not, wholly, natural desires shared by the prevalence of humanity.

Reader: But I don’t desire God!

Author: Ah, question for you, this time: What is most important to you? What would you be willing to give your life for?

Reader: Well, I think, honestly, in the depths of my heart, believe that I am the most important person. All of which is good depends on whether or not it is good to me.

Author: Then, my friend, you proved my point. You do desire God—but the god in your life is yourself. The thing which you value above all is You. You keep telling me about how you are depressed, saddened, and having your “mid-life crisis” – no wonder! Your desire for God is fulfilled by desiring only things of yourself.

Reader: Maybe I’m just a miserable person. Life has its ups and downs. You cannot make me believe that your God is the one to believe in.

Author: And you know what? You’re right. I cannot make you believe. Belief is a choice. That’s the beauty of free will. You choose. As Kreeft says, “God gives you just enough light to see if you want; enough light to not see if you want to; it comes down to whether you want to see Him.” Searching for God is easy if you want to find Him.

Reader: But that means nothing. One of my favorite philosophers, Bertrand Russell, who was asked on his deathbed what he would say if he met God once he died, replied, “I would ask Him: Sir, why didn’t you give us more evidence!?” Obviously for Russell, God, even if He did exist, gave no good evidence to suggest so.

Author: By claiming to be an atheist, one who rejects God, you must claim that you are one of the .1% most enlightened and arrogant people on the face of the planet because you have rejected the most basic desire—to honor and believe in the existence of some deity…

Reader: But I want PROOF!

Author: You will have proof only when you open yourself wholly for the search of God and finding His will. Allow Him to give you the ultimate proof of His existence: A Direct Interior Experience.

Reader: But…but… how are you so sure that it will work?

Author: I am not sure. I have faith. I have faith that when Jesus Christ said, “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find”, He wasn’t blowing` smoke. I have faith because I have experienced the awesome power of God myself. I know that God exists because He has touched my life. The God I believe in is the sort of God who is kind and loving.

Reader: Why, then, doesn’t God reveal Himself to everyone to induce belief?

Author: Because He desires for us to freely love Him. What good is love if it isn’t free?

Reader: True… But I…

Author: I need to end the paper. I would love to chat with you more in the future! Let me know how finding God goes for you! Keep in touch. Oh, and please, call me J.A. It’s a title of friends.