Evangelicals and Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is dead.

Perhaps the world's most prominent and outspoken atheist, Hitchens died Thursday from complications of esophageal cancer at the age of 62. He garnered infamy throughout evangelicalism through his articulate communication of the belief that faith in God was not only not a good thing, but was actually the cause of most of our problems.  It is no surprise that such books as God is Not Good helped to make him "Enemy #1" in the minds of many members of the evangelical community.

I suppose there may be some who are gleeful at the passing of one who spent so much time and effort being an enemy of the One whom we follow. Though it would be a sad indictment on Christians, it would not be altogether surprising to see reaction pieces  proclaiming, "Ding-dong, the wicked witch is dead!"

Douglas Wilson, on the other hand, has written an obituary that is well-thought-out, well-stated, and I would argue a far better Christian response, which I think is quite helpful in demonstrating how we ought to react to the death of Hitchens.

You can click here to read Wilson's piece in its entirety, but there was one thing in particular I wanted to highlight.  I found the following passage to be quite interesting:

We also know that Christopher was worried about this, and was afraid of letting down the infidel team. In a number of interviews during the course of his cancer treatments, he discussed the prospect of a "death bed" conversion, and it was clear that he was concerned about the prospect. But, he assured interviewers, if anything like that ever happened, we should all be certain that the cancer or the chemo or something had gotten to his brain. If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead. In short, he was preparing a narrative for us, just in case.

It occurred to me as I read these words how precious the gospel is, and how (apart from the grace of God) I am exactly like Christopher Hitchens (though nowhere near as intellectually gifted). You see, Hitchens and I agreed on this much: If he (or I or anyone else) trusts in Christ, it is most assuredly not our own doing (Ephesians 2:8, 9). And if he (or I or anyone else) confesses faith, then indeed the person we once were should already be counted as dead (2 Corinthians 5:17). And every bit as much as Hitchens, we were all once enemies of God, reconciled to him not by any goodness in us, but only through the death of his Son (Romans 5:10).

It turns out evangelicals have more in common with Christopher Hitchens than we thought.

Is Christopher Hitchens Right?

Christopher Hitchens wrote an article yesterday for Slate.com decrying “the wall of silence” within the Roman Catholic Church that has shielded abusive priests from legal prosecution. In the article, Hitchins issues a Reaganesque call to Pope Benedict to tear down this wall.

Though this is often not the case, I must admit that I find myself agreeing with Christopher Hitchens on a number of points. For instance, Hitchens is right that there ought not be “men and institutions that are above and beyond our laws.” The abuse of defenseless children (as well as shielding the perpetrators) is inexcusable, and it ought to be punished. Not only do I agree with this, but I think the vast, vast majority of Christians would as well. Far more importantly than majority rule though is the fact that the Bible agrees with it, and thus it is the true Christian position.

He is also right in his unspoken (yet implied) sense that forgiveness ought to be available for “sins like divorce, abortion, contraception, and homosexuality between consenting adults.” It is not that these are not sins (though there certainly is diversity of Christian opinion at the very least on contraception), rather that the grace of God is larger yet than ANY sin, and the blood of Christ Jesus is capable of cleansing one of ALL unrighteousness.

Where Hitchens is wrong though is in his assumption that those who hold to certain unbiblical positions and yet call themselves Christians, are indeed the voice of true Christianity. Thus they become the straw man that he (rightly) argues against.

Hitchens also states, “Invariably and without exception, (Christians) inform me that without a belief in supernatural authority I would have no basis for my morality.” Hitchens is slightly off base here. The argument is not that the belief in a supernatural authority is the basis for morality, but rather that the actual existence of a supernatural authority is its basis.

The idea is basically this: Without a divine law-giver, there can be no over-arching law of morality. Hitchens is right to condemn child rape. But on what basis? It is on the basis of the fact that it stands in opposition to the moral law which emanates from the character of God. There is morality, therefore there must be a God. This is quite different than saying you have to believe a certain set of precepts in order to have morality.

May the lesson that we as Christians learn from this all be twofold:

1) Let us live Christ-like lives in the midst of our world so that they can see what the true Body of Christ looks like, making it harder for them to caricature who we are.

2) Let us take care not to use the same tactics in our argumentation, but rather seek an honest and open discourse wherein we attempt to truly understand what others are saying so that we can rightly apply the truth of the gospel to their thoughts.