Friday, January 29, 2010

Christopher Hitchens: Defender of Orthodoxy, Scourge of Liberalism

Seminary-trained Unitarian minister Marylin Sewell interviews Christopher Hitchens. An excerpt:

Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Sewell: Let me go someplace else. When I was in seminary I was particularly drawn to the work of theologian Paul Tillich. He shocked people by describing the traditional God—as you might as a matter of fact—as, “an invincible tyrant.” For Tillich, God is “the ground of being.” It’s his response to, say, Freud’s belief that religion is mere wish fulfillment and comes from the humans’ fear of death. What do you think of Tillich’s concept of God?”

Hitchens: I would classify that under the heading of “statements that have no meaning—at all.” Christianity, remember, is really founded by St. Paul, not by Jesus. Paul says, very clearly, that if it is not true that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we the Christians are of all people the most unhappy. If none of that’s true, and you seem to say it isn’t, I have no quarrel with you. You’re not going to come to my door trying convince me either. Nor are you trying to get a tax break from the government. Nor are you trying to have it taught to my children in school. If all Christians were like you I wouldn’t have to write the book.

22 comments:

CRL said...

You Christians can never be too grateful for the services Christopher Hitchens has given your church.

Sabio Lantz said...

Agreeing with CRL

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"If all Christians were like you I wouldn’t have to write the book."

That sums it up nicely. While I don't particularly like the dismissal of liberal Christians, either by conservative Christians or non-Christians, we'd likely hear very little from the atheists of the world if society weren't so saturated with fundamentalist Christianity.

Laughing Boy said...

@ CRL & Sabio: Ain't it the truth!

@ Mike: I agree we'd hear little from atheists if all Christians were of the liberal variety. Liberal Christianity is quite innocuous. If all Christians were liberal, Christianity would be easily ignored, soon forgotten, and eventually extinct.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Well, at least you made me laugh. Liberal and moderate Christianity can be just as vibrant as conservative fundamentalist Christianity.

Laughing Boy said...

Well, at least you made me laugh.

That's the goal.

Vibrant? You mean like shiny, happy people? What's a vibrant Christianity or Christian or church? What about Christianity, if anything, makes it uniquely meaningful?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Yes, I mean Shiny, Happy People, just like the REM song that makes me want to put red hot ice pics in my ears.

Of course, what I actually meant was full of life. Like a big, lush, fruit producing tree.

"The mark of a true Christian is NOT what they believe about the Bible.
The mark of a true Christian is how they shine the light of Christ's
love, grace, forgiveness, compassion, etc. into the dark corners of our
world." -- Rev. David Eck

Sounds good to me.

Laughing Boy said...

Sounds good to me, too.

My concern with liberalism, at least in it's stereotypical form, is that it often denies the historical truths which give a basis in reality for love, grace, compassion, etc. Without it's historicity, Christianity becomes just another "be the best you now" self-help program.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I never thought of Osteen or any of the prosperity gospel folks as being in the liberal camp. Aside from their rather unorthodox, literal interpretation of the promises of scripture, they tend to fall into the conservative camp in most other issues.

Churches can become useless, or even harmful to their fellow man regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.

Laughing Boy said...

I don't mean liberal in the political or social sense— which Osteen, et al are certainly not—but strictly regarding Christian doctrine. By liberal, in this context, I'm speaking of those who deny the fundamental tenants of Christianity as set forth in the Creeds, or like Osteen, as far as I can tell, are oblivious to them.

Can you answer my earlier question about what, if anything, is (or is claimed to be) unique about Christianity? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I appreciate your views.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

First of all, Christianity, not unlike Soylent Green, is made of people.

Of course there are many claims made regarding the uniqueness of Christianity, and many groups that vary widely in their beliefs claim to be Christian.

You could ask your question of 10 different Christians and get 10 different answers. You could also examine multiple theological schools of thought to get multiple answers. To be considered orthodox, it's normal for one to accept some form of belief in atonement via Christ, so perhaps that is unique, but only if it's true in some capacity.

As an outsider I see little that is truly unique to Christianity, to me it is another of many attempts at explaining the universe.

CyberKitten said...

mike said: As an outsider I see little that is truly unique to Christianity, to me it is another of many attempts at explaining the universe.

As a fellow outsider I agree...

Laughing Boy said...

I'm an insider, but I don't have time nor does my laptop battery have the juice to reply just now. I'll try to reply tomorrow evening.

Laughing Boy said...

I see little that is truly unique to Christianity, to me it is another of many attempts at explaining the universe.

I have a bible at hand with over 1,100 pages of "scriptural" content, and (pretty much) only the first 1.5 pages have to do with any attempt to explain the universe. And that "attempt" is quite limited, given that it could be distilled down to four words, "God made it all," it does little in the way of explaining. What's the point of the other 1,098.5 pages?

As for anything unique about Christianity, in contrast to other religions, let me suggest the Trinity as one example.

Another is the "directionality" of Christianity. Other religions focus on lifting oneself out of the material world and into the heavenly realm, while Christianity is all about God, in Christ, leaving the heavenly realm to join us in the material world.

The uniguenes of Christianity might be worth its own post.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

When I say "explain the universe" I do not mean explain the origins of the universe. All religions are a way of helping us to understand the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

Regarding the Trinity: the Trinity is one god being expressed in three. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are all different aspects of one supreme being, those three being the main expressions. Both Christianity and Hinduism could be seen as monotheistic polytheism.

Regarding the "directionality" of Christianity: God as man living amongst us the way Jesus' life is portrayed in the NT is unique, as far as I know.

Regarding the Trinity again: it's funny that a doctrine held so dear is never named in Scripture nor laid out clearly.

Laughing Boy said...

Both Christianity and Hinduism could be seen as monotheistic polytheism.

The Hindu Triad is somewhat like the Christian Trinity. The popular Sunday school analogy is the egg—yolk, white, and shell. But the egg is not a trinity (or even a very good analogy) nor is the Hindu Triad. The Hindu god(s) are impersonal and incapable of relationships. The Trinity is relational by definition and each member is a distinct person. So although the god(s) of Hinduism may have a three-ness in character, the Christian Trinity is still unique when considered in detail.

Regarding the Trinity again: it's funny that a doctrine held so dear is never named in Scripture nor laid out clearly.

Is that a problem? Much of established science is based on inference. Can Christian theology not draw inferences from the Scriptures, especially with so many pointers to the concept throughout?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Oh, it's not a problem. It's just odd that something that is thought of as being so obvious to those who have been taught it, isn't.

Laughing Boy said...

Well, perhaps it's not obvious in the details. But it is obvious in Scripture from the very beginning that there is something odd about the number of persons involved.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness"...God created humankind in his own image. (Genesis 1:26-27)

From earlier...

All religions are a way of helping us to understand the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

Oh, right. I think Christianity is primarily the revealing of God, in Christ, to humanity. Anything we learn about ourselves and our world is secondary.

Snowed in?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I hope I'm not snowed in, I'm still at work! ;-)

We're supposed to get another 6 to 10 inches here in NE Ohio.

You?

Laughing Boy said...

The Hindu god(s) are impersonal and incapable of relationships.

Neo-Hinduism's "trinity" is Brahman, Isvara, and Hiranya-garbha. Isvara is personal. However, this formulation of Hinduism by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is very recent amalgam of eastern and western (Plotinus in particular) philosophy. I stand corrected but still insist that the Trinity, considered in detail, is unique to Christianity.

Your comments have given me the urge to re-read The Everlasting Man and do a post on the uniqueness of Christianity. But first I need to finish my Darwin mini-series and then do something on the Atonement.

You?

Yes, 4 days and counting.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Chesterton is one Christian author I have not read. Sadly, many of the comparative religion books I've read in the past were written by Christians who basically made straw men of any of the other faiths.

I added The Everlasting Man to my Amazon wish list.

Dale Hankins said...

I am confused as to why it is important to have a "church" devoted to any one belief at all. By insisting on labeling themselves as "Christians" and setting up formal "churches", liberal believers give shelter to fundamentalism. Are churches and Christianity (or any religion for that matter) necessary prerequisites, or in any real sense, the primary source of kindness and moral behavior? As soon as we say religion is required for compassion we open the gate to those who would use this belief as an excuse to set themselves apart from or even superior to those who do not share the belief.