The Dawn Treader

Chesterton's quote is worth reprinting in total.

In case the point is not clear, an historic example may illustrate it. The French Revolution was really an heroic and decisive thing, because the Jacobins willed something definite and limited. They desired the freedoms of democracy, but also all the vetoes of democracy. They wished to have votes and not to have titles. Republicanism had an ascetic side in Franklin or Robespierre as well as an expansive side in Danton or Wilkes. Therefore they have created something with a solid substance and shape, the square social equality and peasant wealth of France. But since then the revolutionary or speculative mind of Europe has been weakened by shrinking from any proposal because of the limits of that proposal. Liberalism has been degraded into liberality. Men have tried to turn "revolutionise" from a transitive to an intransitive verb. The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against, the system he would trust. But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

This passage is gold.  What a perfect recapitulation of modern and (post-modern) man.

In our modern "post" everything world, we are against everything.  Against modernism, against institutions, against oppression, against intolerance, against war, against religion, against the right, against the left ... against, against, against.

It is what pastor Ed Dunnington refers to as a "spirit of againstness."

In the case of modern man, being against everything creates contradictions all over the place.  Complaining that people are treated like beasts ... and then promoting evolution which shows that men really are beasts.  Being against everything ends up standing for nothing.

It reminds me of the leadership of the Democratic party.  They are for the war and against the war.  They are for more troops and against more troops.   They are for protecting the weak and not protecting the weakest.

Another parallel is within the church.

There is a powerful movement of "againstness" afoot in evangelicalism called the emergent church.  It is a rejection of church structures and practices.  For some, it is a rejection of certainty.  No matter which side of the coin you are on, however, you are rejecting something.

I am ok with critiquing things.  But as Chesterton points out, we need to stand for something and not just define ourselves in terms of what we reject.

The ability to stand for something is one of the reasons I think some people are drawn to Islam and its absolutes.  It is a simple religion and rests on simple non-negotiable absolutes.  Whether you agree or disagree with those absolutes, something which stands on absolute principles is refreshing in this post everything world.