Christopher Hitchens - Is Christianity Loved to Death?

On October 11, 2007 AD at 5:30 pm a "A debate, dialogue, and discussion" took place between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath which was entitled "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World" (find the transcript here, find the video here).

The New Atheist, or the old ones for that matter, should be encouraged to speak about the Bible and its contents as loudly and often as possible. This is because in doing so they not only leave the Bible unscathed but end up discrediting themselves.

Mr. Hitchens misrepresents the Bible and the Christian theology that has sprung forth form it in stating:

"_it is in the Christian version that another, called different kind, of immorality is proposed, the worst kind of immorality yet, which is the, the wicked idea of non-resistance to evil and the deranged idea that we should love our enemies. Nothing, nothing could be more suicidal and immoral than that. We have to defend ourselves and our children and our civilization from our enemies. We have to learn to educate ourselves in a cold, steady dislike of them and the determination to encompass their destruction. Who here heard anyone after September the 11th in Holy orders actually say, oh, well we must turn, learn to love these people. Did they dare say that then; of course not. They saw the emptiness and the futility and the immorality of what they would have been caught saying if they even tried it. We have to bear all this stuff in mind. This is not moral teaching at all. We have to survive our enemies, we have to learn to destroy them, especially because they, too, are motivated by the hectic, maniacal ideas of monotheism which really seeks and yearns for the destruction of our planet and the end of days. That's why it's not moral. That's why we have to outgrow it and defeat it."

Well, perhaps he has a point. After all, the Bible does have Jesus stating, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person" (Matthew 5:39). So there you have it, so let us move on quickly to the next point.

Actually, this is what the pseudo-skeptic would like you to do: a assertion is proposed without quotation and without citation. What I quoted above was actually not Matthew 5:39 but was Matthew 5:39a the verse, the thought, the context, states, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Therefore, this has nothing to do with terrorism or world wars of any sort. What is a slap in the face? Regardless of chronology, geography or theology, a slap in the face is an insult. Thus, if someone insults you, do not insult them back.

Fine, but what about "the deranged idea that we should love our enemies"? Yes, this is certainly a problem, at least for Darwinian kill or be killed survival of the fittest amorality. Let us again actually consider what the Bible states as we consult with Luke 6:27-40:

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also.
And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.
Give to everyone who asks of you.
And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.
And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."

In the very next verse we begin to find out why such voluptuous generosity is recommended:

"But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.
But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.
Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."

If you are supposed to be a believer then your generosity aught to be voluptuous and not be done solely in order to get back nor done only to those with whom you already have good relations. Where is there anything about armies attacking or home invasions? Mr. Hitchens appears to see the word "enemy" and he defines it as "terrorist out to murder my whole culture, friends, family and all." Yet, enemy could be two people such as Mr. Hitchens and Dr. McGrath (although one of them is more apt to think of it in those terms than the other). After all, did not the text refer to "those who curse you_who spitefully use you_who strikes you on the one cheek"?

Another likewise text of the Bible is found in Matthew 5:43-50:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies,
bless those who curse you,
do good to those who hate you,
and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also."

Clearly, the point is that if God blessed both the evil and the good, the just and the unjust, so should you. Evil and unjust people have a long history of responding to love.

But what about going as far as loving the actual terrorist enemies that we have? Does that mean that we cannot defend ourselves and our children and our civilization? No. For example, when Jesus interacted with a Roman Centurion He did not tell him to quit the army (Matthew 8:5-8, 10, 13; Luke 7:1-10). When the apostle John was approached by Roman soldiers, "the soldiers asked him, saying, 'And what shall we do?'" did John tell them to quite the army? No, rather, "he said to them, 'Do not intimidate [literally; shake down for money] anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14). He commanded them regarding moral behavior. Lastly, we see that after Jesus' ascension the Apostles reacted likewise in regards to the righteous within the military, "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household_Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews" (Acts 10:1-4, 22). Armies are necessary in order to ensure the security of the nation.

Mr. Hitchens' encouragement to "learn to educate ourselves in a cold, steady dislike of them and the determination to encompass their destruction" caused Dr. McGrath to, rightly, discourage the dehumanization of our enemies (something which somehow Mr. Hitchens managed to deny doing).

Beyond the un-contextual misapplications of the Bible's text and beyond dehumanization is Mr. Hitchens' further assertion of how, or whether, these biblical concepts are applied. After all, as he stated, "Who here heard anyone after September the 11th in Holy orders actually say, oh, well we must turn, learn to love these people[?]" I do not know "Who here [at the debate]" heard that but I did hear it at the church services that I attend. Thus, Mr. Hitchens' is arguing from ignorance, from literal lack of enough information upon which to base a logically valid critique.

He further stated, "Did they dare say that then; of course not. They saw the emptiness and the futility and the immorality of what they would have been caught saying if they even tried it." Since he misunderstands the text of the Bible (in its immediate and greater context) he misapplies it, since he misapplies it he misunderstands it, and since he misunderstands it he presents an argument from flummox.

As I stated it at a Bible study that I attended: I have prayer for the salvation of Osama bin Laden et al and I would also introduce a projectile into his gray matter, if need be. I can love him as the tremendously mislead and malicious person that he is and I can protect the world, my country, my family and friends by ridding the world of him, if need be.