Banner
Reflections on Christopher Hitchens PDF Print E-mail
Occasional Services - Memorial Homilies
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Friday, 16 December 2011 08:47

Scripture says that it is better to go down to the house of mourning than to the house of laughter (Ecc. 7:2). The reason given in that passage is that this enables the living to "lay it to heart." The death of Christopher Hitchens should in the first place remind us of our own mortality. We should lay it to heart. As Donne so memorably put it, "ask not for whom the bell tolls." Every funeral is our own. These are issues that affect every last one of us.

Those who hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ must always remember that the good news of Christ is set against the backdrop of the bad news -- we are all of us sinners, and we all need cleansing and forgiveness. Christopher Hitchens did not need to come to Christ to have his arguments refuted (although that would have happened). He needed to come to Christ to have his sins forgiven.

There will be a CanonWIRED clip out shortly, in which I caution Christians against two errors -- and both of them are errors of speculation. The possibility of last minute conversions must never be turned into actual last minute conversions. No one is wished into Heaven. There have been too many unbelievers preached into Heaven at the funeral, and we ought not to give way to the false tenderness of that impulse. At the same time, the likelihood that Christopher never called on Christ should not be turned into a hard-line dogmatic statement, followed by "good riddance." No one is wished into Hell either. We ought not to greet the news of Christopher's death the way he greeted the death of Jerry Falwell's, for example.

The bad news is that we are all under judgment. The good news is that the one who has faith in Jesus may be forgiven. We must unashamedly declare these terms to the whole world -- but declaring the terms of judgment (which Scripture requires us to do) is not the same thing as playing the Judge ourselves. We leave the soul of Christopher Hitchens (and he did have a soul, despite all his arguments) in the hands of God, who will do nothing but right.

All of this is of course consistent with the affection I had for Christopher. Our prayers and condolences are with his family and friends.

Here are some further reflections on Christopher's passing that I wrote for Christianity Today.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Friday, 16 December 2011 15:32
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Eric the Red  Friday, December 16, 2011 9:45 am
If there is a God -- a question I think Hitchens got right -- then surely God would know what kind of evidence it would have taken to persuade Hitchens of his existence, and would not judge Hitchens too harshly because the evidence was not forthcoming.
Chadd Sheffield  - Oh, but  Friday, December 16, 2011 10:38 am
Oh, but if the bible is God's Word - a question I believe Christians have right - then the problem is not intellectual or evidential, but rather it is moral.

This means full culpability for Mr. Hitchens.
Eric the Red  Friday, December 16, 2011 11:27 am
Yes, Chadd, I'm aware that Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as at one time so did I. But we're not talking about belief, since no proposition is so absurd that somebody somewhere doesn't believe it. Rather, we are talking about evidence, and there is scant evidence that I can see either for the existence of God or for the authority of the Bible.

If your God exists, then he gave people brains, and asking them to reject where those brains necessarily take them strikes me as a bit of a con game. If he doesn't want us using our brains, why did he give them to us?
Chadd Sheffield  - yes, I see  Friday, December 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Yes, I see what it is you are getting at, but I think you misunderstood me or I'm unclear or both.

My point is that your hypothetical is wrong. If God exists, and He does, then what He says is true. And what He says is that the issue is not proof or evidence, God's existence is clear and evident through what had been made.

The issue is that the evidence is suppressed and misinterpreted because he hated God. No one rejects God because of logic or evidence. Of that there is enough to know God exists. God is rejected because men love darkness rather than light.
Gabriel Rench  - faith is everything  Friday, December 16, 2011 11:53 am
Eric- the most basic faculty we use as humans is faith. The bible is chalk full of evidence and you just choose not to believe it. The stars created by God are evidence and you just choose not to believe it. The questions is not about evidence, the question is whether you believe you need your sins paid for. Tis the reason for the season.
Dan  Friday, December 16, 2011 12:04 pm
I am always fascinated by skeptics who say things like, "If God exists, then..."
Andrew Roggow  - re:  Friday, December 16, 2011 12:59 pm
Dan wrote:
I am always fascinated by skeptics who say things like, "If God exists, then..."


Me too, Dan.
Jerry Brown  Friday, December 16, 2011 1:26 pm
I think it was at the DG conference a couple years ago or so, where I heard you say, referring to Hitchens, that you didn't care so much if you won the argument, you wanted to win the man. That stuck in my head, and I was always hoping that it would happen.
Kimbal  - Radaractive  Friday, December 30, 2011 1:08 pm
I mourned Christopher Hitchens when he passed. I mourned for the man, for I watched Collision a few times with friends and family. I mourned for Douglas Wilson, because I could tell he most earnestly prayed for Hitchens to receive Christ and must have grown to love him during their time of fellowship and sparring sessions. At the end of Collision when Hitchens admits he would not wipe all Christians from the planet I could almost hear him thinking that "I would at least want Douglas to be around."

When I do see Jesus face-to-face and rejoice with all my fellow saints in Heaven I would love to see that Christopher Hitchens changed his mind in the end, no matter what he previously asserted. I do not expect it, but I would certainly be glad of it!

The article, (To Douglas Wilson) was great work and even included a Moody Blues reference!
DHammer  - Strong Work  Friday, December 16, 2011 1:47 pm
Whoa Doug! Great CT article! The on-line Hitchens debate may have been your strongest work (except maybe "Joy At The End of the Tether"). The final post there, where you called Christopher to live up to his name, made the hair on my arms stand up. It was beautiful. It must have been a significant burden to hate God and carry his name.

Jerry Brown's comment above, has also stuck with me.
Eric the Red  Friday, December 16, 2011 1:49 pm
"The issue is that the evidence is suppressed and misinterpreted because he hated God. No one rejects God because of logic or evidence. Of that there is enough to know God exists. God is rejected because men love darkness rather than light."

I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous (to say nothing of ad hominem). Many atheists who are ex-Christians went through agony as they were losing their faith because they wanted so desperately to keep believing, only to have the weight of the contrary evidence finally force them to conclude that there's no reason to think there's anything out there. You think I wouldn't be ecstatic to be able to believe in a benevolent heavenly father who takes a personal interest in my life? Of course I would, if only there were a reason to believe.

Your evidence is ancient texts, convoluted philosophical arguments, and "isn't it obvious", none of which constitute any real evidence.
Andrew Lohr  Friday, December 16, 2011 2:19 pm
Eric, my wife and her mother have experienced miracles. That's evidence, like CERN finding something faster than light or blaming global warming on the sun. (Jim Rutz's book MEGASHIFT and Jack Deere's SURPRISED BY THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT give plenty of accounts of miracles. Pastor Wilson may, for his theological reasons, hesitate to believe in miracles.) Obviously we can't see God--the Bible says so--and obviously bad things happen--Jesus was crucified. But can you top "Christ died for our sins" for love, or "rose again the 3rd day" for power, if these things are true? And denying them is a faith commitment, a worldview choice, not just a matter of 'facts.' Christians know the 'facts.'
Andrew Roggow  Friday, December 16, 2011 2:36 pm
Eric the Red,

One of the strongest evidences of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fact that all of his disciples except for John were executed because they would not deny what they had witnessed. If Christ's resurrection was nothing but a lie for the purpose of promoting a scam, there is no way this would have happened. When the going gets tough, anyone who is in it for influence, fame, or fortune bows out quickly.
Eric the Red  Friday, December 16, 2011 4:46 pm
Andrew, disbelieving the resurrection isn't a faith choice so much as a recognition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and thus far no such extraordinary proof has been offered. The resurrection is an extraordinary claim; the burden is on its proponents to offer extraordinary proof.

Andrew, you're assuming the four Gospels and the Book of Acts are historically accurate; I don't know that (1) there was an historical Jesus; (2) he had any disciples or (3) that any of them were executed. In fact, I think a far more likely scenario is that the Gospels are loosely based on the life of a rabbi who did exist, but whose life experiences were grandly embellished many years after the fact. It wouldn't be the first time; that's basically the story of the Koran and the Book of Mormon too.

But let's cut to the chase. On the subject of evidence, you have a few ancient texts, a couple of philosophical arguments, and a subjective opinion that you think it's obvious. Well, assume God does exist and wants to be known. Why on earth would he not offer conclusive, obvious and irresistable proof of his existence rather than leave us to guess? There are any number of unimportant facts that no one cares about and that have zero impact on anyone's life as to which there is abundant proof; why the lack of proof for what you would argue is the single most important fact in existence?
Josh  Friday, December 16, 2011 8:33 pm
Eric the Red,
You say, "Well, assume God does exist and wants to be known." Such an assumption is erroneous.
Indeed, the Bible does say that God is not "willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9). However, that is not to say that God is going to save all (or, to use your wording, that he will "be known" by all). (As an aside: "knowing" God is the same as being saved, biblically speaking (1 John 2:3-5)). In fact, He makes it His plan to save very few (Matt. 7:13-14, Rom. 9:27).
You follow up by saying, "Why on earth would he not offer conclusive, obvious and irresistable proof of his existence rather than leave us to guess?"
This presupposes that God would abide by a logic favorable to man (you). From where do you draw such an assumption? But to answer the question posed by you from a biblical standpoint: indeed, the age old argument stands true here, too--it's His plan.
That is correct. The God that created you made you without any free will to resist the disposition that would earn you damnation. He, in fact, is the cause of your sin (Amos 3:6, Rom. 11:36, Isaiah 45:7). And He, likewise, holds us all responsible for those sins (Rom. 2:6-9) of which we had no choice in committing (Prov. 16:9, Jer. 10:23).
I am an agnostic ( :shock: ), and I have come to at least understand the arguments against my former atheism. I understand that, yes, when I set the rules (as you have tried here), God does not seem likely to exist. But am I in a position to set the rules? I would be a hypocrite to my Christian detractors to say that I make the rules for God--or for that matter, that human logic or physics make the rules for God--and would fall under the predictions of Romans 1.
Just so we're clear (if you do respond and read this), I believe Wilson is largely wrong on his theology, but was drawn to his website after reading about the death of Hitchens, and thought his blog would be a good place for discourse.
Darius T.  Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:46 am
You don't know there was a historic Jesus??? Right there shows that you don't really care about the evidence, you have chosen to reject it no matter what.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:23 am
Darius, what I said was that I didn't know if there was an historical Jesus or not. "I don't know" means I'm willing to look at evidence as I haven't formed an opinion.

But let me ask the question in reverse. Suppose there was no historical Jesus; would you be willing to entertain that possibility? Or would you reject out of hand any evidence tending to dispute his existence? If your answer is what I suspect it is, then I'm not the one who's impervious to evidence.
Jane Dunsworth  Saturday, December 17, 2011 8:10 am
Eric, I could probably adduce some evidence that the sun doesn't exist, if I tried hard enough. Would you be willing to consider it?

It isn't unreasonable to refuse to consider evidence against that which you already consider to be established beyond the point that contradiction is actually possible. The mere existence of contradictory evidence is not, as anyone who knows courtroom procedure well knows, the same as a solid case against something.
Andrew Roggow  Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:02 am
Eric the Red wrote:
...The resurrection is an extraordinary claim; the burden is on its proponents to offer extraordinary proof.

Andrew, you're assuming the four Gospels and the Book of Acts are historically accurate; I don't know that (1) there was an historical Jesus; (2) he had any disciples or (3) that any of them were executed. In fact, I think a far more likely scenario is that the Gospels are loosely based on the life of a rabbi who did exist, but whose life experiences were grandly embellished many years after the fact...


Eric the Red,

Now, we are clearly not in a situation where the Christians are making claims and the atheists are just sitting back and waiting for "evidence". You are making claims here, too. What evidence do you have to offer?

We have tens of thousands of manuscripts in the manuscript evidence that goes back to a very early date. Early enough that there would have been practically no time for embellishment. Also the manuscript record show no evidence of embellishment over time either. Claims of such changes to the story of Jesus are not based in actual studied evidence but an assumption that such evidence must exist somewhere. The reason you are making the assumption that this is "far more likely" is because you are allowing your disbelief to guide you to this assumption. This is far different than letting evidence lead you to disbelief.
JCWH  - re:  Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:47 am
Thank you for this piece, Pastor Wilson.

The whole "Collision" era was very formative to my oldest son's perspective, of which I am particularly grateful.

He expressed sadness over Hitchens death; our family was drawn to his talent as an articulator and prayed often for him to cry out to the LORD in faith, to repent and believe.

We will miss him and his writings.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:13 pm
Jane, if you told me you don't believe in the existence of the sun, I would ask why not. If you were able to come up with a coherent, rational explanation I'd consider it. That doesn't mean I would ultimately find it persuasive, but the hallmark of science is being willing to look at evidence, even if it conflicts what is thought to be well-established. There's a long list of things that were considered settled at one time before new evidence came in and proved it wrong.

Most of the time if something is accepted by most scientists there's a reason,and most of the time if someone thinks they have contrary evidence, it turns out on closer examination that their evidence is flawed. And that would most likely be the outcome of someone claiming the sun doesn't exist. But when Einstein came along and proved that Newton was wrong about much of physics, the scientific community looked at it, concluded Einstein was right, and revised what had been taught since the time of Newton.

Andrew, what claims have I made? I said I didn't know if Jesus existed or not; that's not a claim, that's speculation. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't.

Yes, you have ancient manuscripts. And I have a clipping from the National Enquirer, contemporaneous with the life of Carol Burnett, that tells me she was fall down drunk at a party. She then sued the Enquirer for defamation and won. Moral to the story: Don't believe everything you read, even if it's contemporaneous.

In case you're not aware of it, much of the New Testament is indeed fraudulent. St. Paul wrote maybe half the books attributed to him. Mark's Gospel almost certainly is a forgery. Spend some time on google; the scholarship is all there.
Jane Dunsworth  Monday, December 19, 2011 8:44 am
I could go to Google and find a link to an academic paper, written at least a millennium and a half after anyone with any real knowledge died, telling me that the Gospel of Mark is a forgery. Unfortunately, Mark's not around to sue.

Now what?
Dimitrios Tasikas  - Moral Entropy  Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:50 pm
Christopher Hitchens was a great man who specifically challenged us to properly love God with all our mind.

Unfortunately, from all his debates that I watched(and I watched them all) he never really understood the concept of sin. He always equated responsibility as sin. He didn't realize sin is like moral entropy - always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations. It is a sort of law of human nature and we must always strive to fight against it.
Melody  Monday, December 19, 2011 6:46 am
Dimitrios; You said about Christopher Hitchens, "He always equated responsibility as sin". If there is no God then how can there be any such thing as "responsibility" and who gets to decide what constitutes "responsibility"?

Eric the Red; If there is no God, then what is the reason you waste your time having an argument about it? If folks want to believe in God, how is that skin off your nose? Wouldn't you be having more fun pursuing pleasure in the short time you have left on this earth? I can't imagine wasting my time engaging in an argument with someone who was determined that the moon was made of green cheese. If I did, it would only be because I secretly suspected that they might actually be right. Hmmm....
Andrew Roggow  - re:  Monday, December 19, 2011 2:44 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Andrew, what claims have I made?


Eric the Red,

Prefacing a claim with "I think it is far more likely" does not get you off the hook for evidential requirements. A claim is still a claim regardless of how it is couched in ambiguity.

Also a vague statement to do a google search does not constitute evidence. If it does, then I respond to your request for evidence with the same.