Hitchens helped my faith

When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. Proverbs 11:10

I was really pleased to read this, because I had a similar experience, not only with Hitchens but with Zizek as well. I heard Peter Rollins (though this is probably an old idea) talk about how the problem with fundamentalism isn't that it takes the Bible too seriously, rather it doesn't take the Bible seriously enough. That's probably old news for people who have been involved in these debates for decades, but for someone like me, it was mind blowing to consider. Hitchens seemed like he had a great sense of humor, I wonder how he would feel about having inadvertently strengthened the faith of Christians.

I’m not trying to argue with you – I’m just trying tell you that it really is that bad out there. As as someone studying to be a clinical psychologist, I often ask myself this question when I'm working with people: is this problem due to a deficit or a conflict? We have to ask the same question about the church. Should we ascribe this refusal to treat the Bible critically as simply something that is born out of ignorance (deficit) or does it suggest some defense (conflict)? This will have to guide our intervention. My suspicion is that the problem is not simply one of ignorance (given that right-wing Christians know these critiques exist and that other Christians confront them), rather it is driven by fear and anxiety.

Right, I'm aware (to a lesser extent) that this is certainly a significant problem. However, my point was that Hitchens' criticisms about theodicy, history, or the Bible are not particularly revolutionary or theological insurmountable. Granted, I don't have the answers to theodicy, but anybody who blithely ascribes those actions to God's will is intellectually underdeveloped. Moreover, the church should be telling its congregants things about the Bible that all pastors and semi-educated Christians should know. Tillich makes a similar point in ST II that part of the strength of Protestantism has been to take seriously the importance of historical criticism. As long as we avoid these findings in various ways (right-wing denial, Barthian refusal) we run the risk of becoming irrelevant and looking cowardly. My other problem with Hitchens is that he says nothing new theologically from an atheistic perspective. For God's sake, read Freud or Nietzsche or someone who said something challenging. Westphal's text Suspicion and Faith is particularly useful for someone trying to grapple with atheistic critiques of Christianity and theology. Hauerwas says it best, "Sentimentality, the church is filled with sentimentality. I wish that we could produce interesting atheists, but we’re not strong enough believers to produce interesting atheists. Instead what we hear so often in sermons is sentimental drivel about love and how Christians are supposed to love each other and everyone, in a way that is just bullshit. There’s no reality to that”

Many Evangelicals and Charismatics, Fundamentalist and Conservatives actually hold that God is exactly who Hitchens says he wasn’t. I don’t really know what else to say. I'm not sure about the specifics here so I would need to know a bit more about where they agree. I imagine Hitchens takes issues with questions such as: theodicy, science, the Bible and history?

Hitchens might help shatter elementary views of God and Christianity. However, let's not forget that this is the man who attempted to demonize Mother Theresa by calling her 'fraudulent'. Good God. Also, his support of the Iraq War was just pathetic. Obviously, the evangelical celebration of his death is weird and immature, but Hitchens was basically an ideological hack. One other thing, how pathetic is the state of the church if we need conservative idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens to challenge our view of our God? It speaks volumes more about the abysmal state of theological education in the church than about the philosophical importance of Dawkins or Hitchens. If you can attend a church in America and come out harboring theological views that are vulnerable to the criticisms of Dawkins and Hitchens, then the church has failed us miserably.

But on second thought, though I think it's true, I regret posting that comment so soon after Hitchens's death. I agree fully with his brother Peter's comments today: "Much of civilisation rests on the proper response to death, simple unalloyed kindness, the desire to show sympathy for irrecoverable loss, the understanding that a unique and irreplaceable something has been lost to us. If we ceased to care, we wouldn’t be properly human." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2075133/Christopher-Hitchens-death-In-Memoriam-courageous-sibling-Peter-Hitchens.html#ixzz1givoe88j

But the sad irony is, while he may have provided a powerful critique of false god of Empire, his intense hatred of religion led him to blindly worship Empire, so long as it was slaughtering Muslims.

Amen Bo. I resonate with so much of what you have said. Hitchens was both the critic we deserved and the critic we were blessed to have.

I think that is one thing that the Four Horsemen do really effectively - eviscerate the bloated carcass of Christendom (I can't really describe it better than you did). The sad thing is that they also get to define the conversation, at least on the pop culture level - that it is "religion" (Jerry Falwell, young earth creationism and homophobia) versus New Atheism - that this is the fight, and that it is a fair fight, and that one side will win and the other will lose.

Thanks to all who are giving feedback on FB & Twitter too!