I read the interview by Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell of Christopher Hitchens with interest. Hitchens is well-spoken in support of his opinions. Sewell, however, left me with my mouth agape.
That would be agape, as in amazement, not agape, as in love.
Repeatedly, in discussing Christianity with Hitchens (who is an atheist), she could only, at best, describe herself as a person of faith.
Person of faith?
What the hell does that mean?
That’s a meaningless statement if I’ve ever heard one. Anyone who flies on a commercial airliner is a person of faith. Anyone who eats at a public restaurant is a person of faith.
I’m not an atheist, but at least Hitchens didn’t sound like a dumbass. Sewell, on the other hand, completely deserved Hitchens’ responses to her inane questions of nothing, which were less questions and more an attempt to garner respect by downplaying her faith as a person of faith. She barely gets into the interview before making sure she ascertains her liberal and intellectual “faith” street cred:
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.
Sewell later attempts to explain her understanding and belief in God to Hitchens:
Sewell: God is a mystery to me. I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself. That thing larger than myself, I call God, but it’s a metaphor. That God is an emptiness out of which everything comes. Perhaps I would say “ reality” or “what is” because we’re trying to describe the infinite with language of the finite. My faith is that I put all that I am and all that I have on the line for that which I do not know.
Sewell’s attempts to explain God could have applied to a cheeseburger, their tenable value being that low. She seemed more intent on getting Hitchens to agree that the stories of the Bible were a valuable metaphor than anything else.
Valuable metaphor?
Marvel comic books contain valuable metaphors. You don’t see me setting up an altar to Spidey.
As Paul said in 1 Corinthians, and as Hitchens succinctly pointed out to Person-of-Faith Sewell, if you call yourself a Christian and don’t believe, at the very least, that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, you are to be pitied above all others. Sewell is pitiable; she has faith in metaphor and vagueness and non-offense and the historical value of her grandma’s Bible, but not in Christ.
Look, if I’m going to call myself a Christian, I’m going to believe it. I’m going to believe it an not be embarrassed. Otherwise, I’m going to line up with Hitchens and his atheism, and not be pathetic in my worship of valuable metaphors. At least he’s not attempting to straddle the fence.
They might as well have had a Smurf interview Hitchens. The questions would have carried the same religious clarity and Christian conviction, except without the pretension in describing a belief in Papa Smurf.
I could not agree more. With “Christians” like Sewell, who needs atheists to denigrate Christianity?
Where do you find these terribly depressing news bits, Julie? Ugh. Sewell depressed me the most with her washed down, pseudo-religious warm fuzzies. She’s again proof in the pudding that there is a vast difference in saying you’re religious vs. saying you have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. (For me there’s a very clear distinction in each meaning.) I don’t think she even knows the difference. So sad.
I’ll admit I was impressed with Hitchens’ quick intellect, but I do feel his examples are a tad selective, e.g. saying many good things about Socrates and leaving out some of his rather exotic private escapades. No Arete [see Greek meaning] there Chris. …The book though does sound interesting.
I wouldn’t even attempt to dissect Hitchens. His knowledge on so much far exceeds mine. He’d probably win a debate with me on the spelling of my own name. So, I appreciate your points, Bennie. I couldn’t have made them.
It’s spelled J-U-L-I-E, by the way.
Some people write it down as J-U-L-Y, which is a festering annoyance to me. And a month.
Hitchens would most probably cut me to shreds too. That said though it does sort of annoy me when anyone cites some example and does not follow through with the whole story. The annoyance I guess stems from being unsure if the person is intentionally leaving out some valuable facts or if there is some other circumstance going on…like in time constraints. And understandably the interviewer/interviewee both had agendas and the clock was ticking.
But, heck, I sure would (and DO) enjoy a good back and forth when someone brings up–for instance Socrates– and we can talk about everything–from his great ideas to the very questionable relationships he was rumored to have later in his life. Yes, history often segregates the greatness of a person’s legacy–from their more wild private life. I can deal with that, but I like to get everything out in the open so the truth is laid on the table.
The book does sound intriguing though and I might keep an eye out for it. Lord knows there are a lot of things yesterday, today, and tomorrow that are done wrongfully in the name of religion. Hitchens might actually bring up a few good points, and I can sort through the chaff if need be.
If you consider reading it, I’d be curious about your opinions on it. Will’s too!
I don’t generally buy hardcovers (expensive, take up too much space). I’m not sure I want to read the book… I just have a slight worry that if I read a book called “God Is Not Great”, I ought to be wearing shoes that are safely grounded and rubber.
Mostly kidding.
I don’t know; I have a huge stack of books to read. I can’t say that that’s high on my list. If you read it, you ought to come back here and let me know what you think…
Amusing, is it not, when the ‘Christian’ has no clue what Christianity is all about, but the atheist does!
You have a wonderful way of putting a succinct point on the stupidity of asinine religiousity. I really enjoyed this post (and the quotes within).
I guess my main thought could be summed up by saying that if I called myself a person of faith and found that an atheist had no quarrel with my beliefs, it would lead me to wonder about my alleged faith.
My wife once got yelled at by a parent for teaching some kids in bible school that truth was more important than faith. The parent could not see that a person could have faith in a rock or the fuzz between their toes but it was the truth of God that it was important to have faith in. A “person of faith” is anyone for any reason.
[...] There are a lot of things we just don’t want to cut off. I would be in favor of removing the dominant writing hands of the merely “spiritual”, however, and turning their pens over to the atheists. At least they know the Bible. [...]