Christopher Hitchens was a remarkable man in many respects. He had a long career as a public intellectual in a time when popular culture became increasingly banal. He took unpopular positions on many issues, and stuck to his guns--he was an unpopular outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and perhaps more unpopular proponent of the Iraq War.
The blogosphere is full of conversation about his life and impact. He was an unapologetic hedonist and predicted decades ago that his heavy drinking and smoking would eventually do him in.
For Christians, he was best known as an adversary to faith. Hitchens was one of several writers (along with Richard Dawkins and and Sam Harris) who revived intellectual arguments to atheism. His God is Not Great was on the bestseller list when I was in seminary, and everyone had to deal with his and his colleagues' ideas.
None of these writers said anything particularly new. Their arguments against the existence of God had long ago been formulated by the opponents of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and generations before them.
What was new was the vitriol against religion, and Christianity in particular. Hitchens embodied and personified this new anger and contempt for religion (his attacks were equally aggressive toward Islam).
My interest in Hitchens and others was not so much that they were making old arguments against faith. I have been more fascinated by the audience that they gained. How, after so many years of disinterest in rational atheism, had three writers landed permanently on the New York Times bestseller list?
Before Hitchens and comrades, religion had begun to be seen as a matter of personal preference. If people want to be religious, fine. If not, that's their business. What does it have to do with me? If a religion makes a person feel good, that's all and good for them. If Wicca works for one person and Presbyterianism works for another, who cares? Religion makes a claim to ultimate reality. But popular culture equated it with an exercise regimen or favorite ice cream flavor.
The popularity of the New Atheists (as they were sometimes called) came during a time of war and extreme cultural divide over faith. It was a time when President Bush was publicly using the religious language to advocate war against religiously sponsored terrorism (Hitchens coined the term "Islamofacism"). It was a time when the world seemed on the verge of erupting into religiously inspired chaos. Many people of moderate faith or no particular faith suddenly saw religion as more than a personal diversion. Religion appeared to be a threat to human existence.
My father once taught me that we should love our enemies because they are the only people who will tell us the truth about ourselves. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens offers Christians an opportunity for self reflection. If we are to be the salt of the earth, might we be doing something wrong if our enemies see us as that which corrupts and threatens the life of the world? If Jesus said that the world should see our good deeds and glorify God in heaven, what does it mean when Christian engagement in the public sphere causes the culture to listen to those who say not only that God does not exist, but that belief in God is destructive to human collective life? I don't have the answers, but I think we should bring these questions to God. I'm grateful to Hitchens for causing me to reflect on them.
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. Hitchens made an enemy of God, but we can be sure that God found him precious. His great intellect and his passionate search for truth are evidence of his being made in the image of God.
God will judge Christopher Hitchens. That's what it means that God is God and we are not. As much as we were made uncomfortable by Hitchens's rebuke, we may take comfort that the God in whose hands Hitchens now lies loves him still.
No comments:
Post a Comment