Current Quarter Expenses.
Donate Today!
Posted on 01/15/2012 2:18:32 PM PST by rhema
The death of Christopher Hitchens on December 15 was not unexpected, and that seemed only to add to the tragedy. His fight against cancer had been lived, like almost every other aspect of his colorful life, in full public view. He had told numerous interviewers that he wanted to die in an active, not a passive sense. Then again, there may never have been a truly passive moment in Christopher Hitchens’ life.
Long before he was known as one of the world’s most ardent atheists, he was known as a world-class essayist and a hard-driving public intellectual. Born in England, he had made his home in Washington, D.C. for three decades. His range of interests was almost unprecedented. He wrote books on subjects as varied as Thomas Paine and the Elgin Marbles. He was a predictable man of the Left when he began his journalistic career in Britain, and he remained a staunch defender of civil liberties throughout his life. Nevertheless, he broke with liberals in the United States and Britain when he affirmed the Bush Administration’s decision to wage war against terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
He could write eloquent prose, but he could also write savagely. He was a self-described contrarian, even writing a book entitled, Letter to a Young Contrarian. In that book, he described this contrarian stance as “a disposition against arbitrary authority or witless mass opinion.” In practice, for Hitchens it seemed to mean the right to attack any idea, any place, any time, no matter who might hold it.
In 2007 he launched a full assault upon theism and belief in God. In God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Hitchens declared himself to be the implacable and determined foe of all religious belief. Along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, he became part of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism.
Actually, his atheism had already been announced. In Letters to a Young Contrarian, published in 2001, Hitchens had written that he was “not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.” Hitchens did not want to be confused with amateur atheists or with “the generalized agnosticism of our culture.” No, he was the enemy of religious faith and any claim of belief in God.
God is Not Great became a best-seller — a manifesto of the New Atheism and its aggressive public presence. Hitchens distilled the New Atheism to its essence. He asserted that belief in God is not only without intellectual integrity, it is also morally corrupting. He blamed belief in God for everything from ethnic strife and genocide to opposition to science and a hatred of sexuality. Along with the other New Atheists, he delivered a broadside against all theistic belief and religious expression. Whereas the older atheists had soft-pedaled attacks on Jesus Christ, Hitchens rejected any effort to sentimentalize Christ. He wrote that the New Testament was no less violent than the Old Testament and he lambasted any claim of divine revelation. He argued that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and denied that belief in God is necessary to morality.
At the end of his life, fighting against the cancer that had robbed him of his voice even before it stilled his pen, Hitchens pointedly asked Christians not to pray for him, and then allowed that believers might pray for him — if it made them feel better. He also warned against any claims that he might have converted at the end of his struggle. “Suppose I ditch the principles I have held for a lifetime, in the hope of gaining favor at the last minute?” he wrote. “I hope and trust that no serious person would be at all impressed by such a hucksterish choice.” He told others that, if such reports did emerge, they should be attributed to the influence of drugs, and the loss of his mental faculties.
With all that in mind, how can I claim that evangelical Christians should learn from Christopher Hitchens? Well, consider these lessons:
1. Hitchens understood the power of ideas, and he never left a field of intellectual combat without giving his best.
Even as a boy, Christopher Hitchens understood that ideas matter. This conviction was only deepened as he was educated at Oxford University and then, as both journalist and public intellectual, entered the fray of public debate. He never ran from an idea, nor from the responsibility to defend and refine that idea in the combat of intellectual engagement. In his view, ideas rule the world, and he was determined to give his all to the cause of making certain that the superior ideas, in his view, triumphed over the inferior ideas. He never surrendered an idea with a shrug, though he was, on some issues, ready to change his mind, and to stand against his former intellectual allies.
2. Hitchens committed his life to the production of words, believing that the printed and spoken word can change the world.
As a writer and essayist, Hitchens is often compared to George Orwell, the subject of one of his many books. Hitchens’ literary production was, by any measure, prodigious. As some of his friends noted, he seemed to write faster than they could read. He wrote books, essays, and seemingly countless articles. He was a public speaker, a conversationalist, and a commentator. He wrote books and essays that aggravated, assaulted, aggrieved, and irritated. He could be eloquent, and he could be crude. He believed that the power of language drove the world of ideas, and that ideas require verbal expression. He was hardly ever quiet, and the force of his arguments was expanded and extended in time through his writings. Though Hitchens is now dead, his books remain in print and widely available, and will be so for years to come.
3. Hitchens was a man of passion and personal intensity, and he made friends across ideological boundaries.
He was, as Tom Wolfe might describe him, a man in full. His passions were fully in view, if sometimes too much so. He delighted in human company, and made friends around the world. He had a host of Christian friends, including many who had debated him. He was never boring, always interesting, and just about everyone who knew him seems to recall his personal warmth and conviviality. At the very least, even when he attacked Christianity, he did not cut himself off from all Christians.
4. Hitchens did not hide behind intellectual scorn and he did not fear the open exchange of ideas.
Generally, the New Atheists are known for their unwillingness to debate Christians, especially Christian apologists. Richard Dawkins, in particular, has brought disrepute upon his own intellectual confidence by his steadfast and condescending refusal to debate Christian apologists and intellectuals. The same could not be said of Hitchens, who was willing to debate evangelical Christians and to allow the debates to be publicized and published. He did not attempt to shut down debate by insulting his ideological and theological opponents.
5. Hitchens revealed the danger of cultural Christianity and exposure to tepid, lifeless, superficial Christian teaching.
In his childhood, Hitchens was exposed to the mild Christianity of his father and the Hitchens home. (Later in life, he discovered that his mother was, in fact, partly Jewish.) As a schoolboy, Hitchens received the customary dose of tame religious instruction. In God is Not Great, he wrote of Mrs. Jean Watts, “a good, sincere, simple woman, of stable and decent faith,” who taught him religion at his school near Dartmoor. Even as a boy, Hitchens was not impressed by her emotivist expressions of doctrine and her answers to his questions. He wrote also of a school headmaster, who seemed, among other failings, to believe that belief in God served a mainly therapeutic function. Hitchens described himself then as “quite the insufferable little intellectual,” but the damage was done. Unlike others who, as he wrote, might have rejected belief in God because of abuse or “brutish indoctrination,” Hitchens simply developed indignant contempt for a belief system that seemed so superficial and fraudulent. An exposure to tepid, lifeless, thoughtless, and intellectually formless Christianity can be deadly.
The death of Christopher Hitchens is a tragedy. That much is affirmed by virtually all the countless individuals who knew him, or knew of him. But Christians experienced the death of Christopher Hitchens with a special sense of tragedy, for we could not think of his death merely on his terms. We have no choice but to believe that Christopher Hitchens, with all of his amazing gifts, will have to face the very God he so aggressively dismissed and denied. As for that deathbed change of heart he warned us all not to hope for — we have every reason to hope that it happened in spite of himself.
For that matter, every single believer in Christ has come to believe and be saved by grace alone — in spite of ourselves.
There are important lessons to be learned from the life and career of Christopher Hitchens, and they are lessons we must not fail to contemplate. In the final analysis, Christians have far less to fear from atheists or antitheists as we do from what Hitchens called “the generalized agnosticism of our culture.” We agree with him that the question of the existence and identity of God is nothing less than the most powerful and urgent question humanity will ever confront.
For this central reason, the death of Christopher Hitchens is an absolute tragedy. And, as is often the case with such a tragedy, we dare not miss the lessons with which we are left.
bfl
I have no truck with Hitchen’s adolescent infatuation with Trotsky. When I was a kid, I was intrigued by the Russian Revolution which lead me to interview Kerensky (a janitor in Yorkville, upper Manhattan) and Maria Rasputin (his daughter). As I said in my original post, I don’t agree on a lot of what Hitchen’s believed in. But he may have been on to something with Mother Theresa...
It goes against the mainstream media impression of her that we all grew up with in such an extreme manner that most people tune it out as simply impossible to believe.
:-)
Mother Teresa certainly did not endorse the activities of dictators and criminals....and if they wanted to salve their consciences by donating to the needy....why should she deny them the opportunity?
Mother Teresa never judged others-—her philosphy was simply that....... one’s activities are between them and God.......b/c only he can judge.
Was he spared the hellfires? All Hitchens had to say was two simple words-—”save me.”
Because in Keating's case, the money was stolen.
I sometimes wonder how much that really means. Remember the parable about the servents who were given amounts of their masters treasure to invest....I think that Hitchens used his God given talents to the best of his ability. While I cartainly disagree with his conclusions as to the existance of God, he certainly garnered enough controversy to make people think and perhaps strengthen their own belief system. If we are never challenged, we can become complacent and therefore weaker in our beliefs. We should all examine our conciences and determine whether or not we live up to Christ's expectations. I'm quite certain that most of us have a lot of making up to do!!
Never dishonest? Surely you realize that that can’t be said of anyone except Christ.
I understand that many conservatives show a kind of canine gratitude to prominent leftists who deviate in some area or other from the conventional, putrid liberal orthodoxies. Nevertheless, Hitchens’ few deviations cannot, and don’t, make Hitchens “never dishonest.”
I am familiar with much of what he wrote and have seen him “debate”. There are many ways of being dishonest, and Hitchens seemed particularly given to using strawmen, guilt-by-association, omissions, and distortions to gain an unearned advantage and to smear others.
On a deeper level - well - he didn’t have one. He had opinions and a style but didn’t give evidence of ever having thought much of anything through honestly to its metaphysical core. Nor, for that matter, did he show much interest in the careful handling of facts.
He wrote against Mohammedanism: True enough, and I think that it reflected a kind of courage born of his agressiveness toward anything or anyone that challenged his comfortable existence. Yet, while we may share his opposition to Mohammedanism, I suspect that Hitchens’ motivations and mine, as well as the motivations of others here, are on the whole quite different.
He also, as you pointed out, took aim at the Clintons and Blumenthal during “L’Affair Lewinsky.” I applaud that. Much of the left press at the time acted like outsourced Administration damage control operatives.
Since we are on the subject of the embarrassments of the Clinton Administration, you may recall the stories early on about how the Clinton entourage would steal bathrobes, towels, and, even, cutlery from places upon which that cloud of locusts would descend.
I don’t for a moment want to suggest that Hitchens engaged in that sort of dishonesty. Instead, the dishonesty manifest in his work taken as a whole is intellectual and fairly persistent, though not without exception. And, of course,intellectual dishonesty isn’t just determined by whether someone holds the right or wrong view.
Silly.
A reasonable person reading your post would surely think that you were saying that he was a dishonest person, as in we all know people who are serial liars and we all know people who we would consider "honest".
Hitchens was the latter, intellectually and personally as far as I know, and I know a lot about him. It seems you're confusing your extreme disagreement with his point of view with intellectual dishonesty, and without specific examples, I'm politely calling bull$hit on your claim.
I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but seeing him take down people like Chris Hedges and Scott Ritter showed someone who was unmasking dishonesty, not displaying it.
Again its a question of not judging others-—only Keating knows if money he donated was stolen.
“..to make people think and perhaps strengthen their own belief system.”
Hitchens had that affect on me.I've had struggles through my life as we all have.Reading or listening to him in debates served to strengthen my faith in the Lord.
“We should all examine our conciences and determine whether or not we live up to Christ's expectations. I'm quite certain that most of us have a lot of making up to do!!”
We all fall short,but I surmise,that you as well as many others know that.Having said that He accepts us as we are.What breaks my heart is that so many people will not even look to Christ as The Counselor.
It seems such a waste that Hitchens,in his great intellect could not simply look around and see that God is.This world and everything in it,is just too complicated to have just been a huge accident.
I saw on this thread that some have a problem with Hitch but like I said above,his atheism strengthened my faith.
He stole millions; he admitted it. The victims kindly asked for their property back from the MT and the MOC, who promptly ignored them.
If someone steals from innocent people and gives the money to a charitable organization, the charity is under a moral obligation to give it back. Would it be OK with you for someone to steal everything you own and leave you destitute, as long as they gave your money and property to "charity"?
This is what I'm talking about miss marmelstein. I've seen people bend themselves over backwards to excuse any blame whatsoever for the Keating and Duvalier fiascoes. It's a sight to see.
I am a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County and one of the persons who worked on the prosecution of your benefactor, Charles H. Keating, Jr. I read your letter to Judge Ito, written on behalf of Mr. Keating, which includes your admission that you know nothing about Mr. Keating's business or the criminal charges presented to Judge Ito. I am writing to you to provide a brief explanation of the crimes of which Mr. Keating has been convicted, to give you an understanding of the source of the money that Mr. Keating gave to you, and to suggest that you perform the moral and ethical act of returning the money to its rightful owners.
Mr. Keating was convicted of defrauding 17 individuals of more than $900,000. These 17 persons were representative of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000. Mr. Keating's specific acts of fraud were that he was the source of a series of fraudulent representations made to persons who bought bonds from his company and he also was the repository of crucial information which he chose to withhold from bond purchasers, thereby luring his victims into believing they were making a safe, low-risk investment. In truth and in fact, their money was being used to fund Mr. Keating's exorbitant and extravagant lifestyle.
The victims of Mr. Keating's fraud come from a wide spectrum of society. Some were wealthy and well-educated. Most were people of modest means and unfamiliar with high finance. One was, indeed, a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating's fraud.
The biblical slogan of your organization is 'As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren. You did it to Me'. The 'least' of the brethren are among those whom Mr. Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know, divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr. Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he persists in self-righteously blaming others for his own misdeeds. Your experience is, admirably, with the poor. My experience has been with the 'con' man and the perpetrator of the fraud. It is not uncommon for 'con' men to be generous with family, friends and charities.
Perhaps they believe that their generosity will purchase love, respect or forgiveness. However, the time when the purchase of 'indulgences' was an acceptable method of seeking forgiveness died with the Reformation. No church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as a salve for the conscience of the criminal. We all are grateful that forgiveness is available but we all, also, must perform our duty. That includes the Judge and the Jury. I remind myself of the biblical admonition of the Prophet Micah: 'O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you. To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly.'
We are urged to love mercy but we must do justice.
You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart — as he sentences Charles Keating — and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience?
I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the 'indulgence' he desires Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it!
If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Turley
(Lawyer for victims of Charles Keating's theft)
I should have known better than to reply to someone who could claim that Hitchens, or anyone, for that matter, was never dishonest.
You seem to confuse agreeing with Hitchens sometimes, or admiring a few of the things he did, with his modus operandi.
I’m sorry. I cannot see why Dr. Mohler wasted all that time, bandwidth and virtual ink on that one particular God-hater. The loss of any eternal, never-dying soul is tragic. Once Hitchens assumed room temperature and was beyond redemption, HE was no more a tragedy than an unsaved wino who died on skid row. IMHO
Nice bit of gibberish.
Even Hitchens would have laughed out loud at your claim he was never dishonest, which would have been an honest moment for him.
Do you have other examples of people who were “never dishonest”? Perhaps we could ask them to run for office.
You are puffed up thinking you have scored a logical point when all you have done is commit an empirical pratfall.
Hitchens was 56 when he uttered those words, hardly an adolescent. To the rational it explains his bigotry, the irrational don't matter. I hope he got right with the Lord but whether he did or didn't his sneering bigotry on Gaia does not seem to be worthy of admiration. But your mileage may vary vary on that.
Thanks for your post #4. That was exactly my response to this man’s death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.