Debate : Christopher Hitchens and Reverend Douglas Wilson.
During his 2007-2008 book tour for the publication, ‘God is not Great’, Christopher Hitchens engaged with Reverend Douglas Wilson, author, theologian and pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho; with whom he went on to share many public debates140 , which were subsequently made into a filmed documentary called, ‘Collision’. Whilst there are many film recordings and written accounts by Hitchens on his position on vicarious redemption, the excerpt141 from ‘Collision’, captures the core of the ‘Hitchens disbelief system’. In making a case for why Christianity is hard to believe, Hitchens proposes a rejection of the following key doctrinal elements or building blocks of the Christian belief system. The following account is drawn from this film resource, with the location of the respective extracts within the debate being referenced by the time into the recording.
Placing the advent of Christianity as part of a divinely ordained intervention in the history of humankind; through the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ, Hitchens argues that, to subscribe to the Christian belief system, one would have to hold as true that, for the estimated 100 000 years which humans are believed to have inhabited the planet, heaven watched human suffering with indifference for approximately 98 000 years, before intervening; in ‘bronze-age Palestine’. The key point which Hitchens makes about this intervention is that it takes the form of “condemning someone to a human sacrifice in the less literate parts of the Middle East” (0.50 minutes); an occurrence which, he admonishes, “cannot be believed by a thinking person.” (1.02 minutes).
Hitchens’ rejection of vicarious redemption, as the central teaching of Christianity, is predicated upon the absence of any basis on which to accept the divinely ordained
140 Debate : Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. Online reference :
ChristopherHitchslap (2011). Christopher Hitchens vs Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster. [online]. Available from: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UU9C-WmvM>. [Accessed 13 January 2013].
141 Debate : Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. Online Reference :
bdw5000 (2011). Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe. [online]. Available from:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-_74o2lnNk>. [Accessed 3 January 2013].
105
intervention mentioned above. He views vicarious redemption as being the most immoral of all Christian teachings, which he equates with ‘scapegoating’ (1.25 minutes), which he points out, originated in the same desert area of the Middle East.142 Not unlike scapegoating, which represented the abandoning of a communities’ sins onto an animal and whipping it out of the city walls into the wilderness; with vicarious redemption, the Christian belief system allows for sins to be cast upon the person of Jesus Christ, through whose sacrificial death redemption is thought to be gained (1.20 minutes). Hitchens makes the point that to believe the Christian offering of vicarious redemption, one would have to accept that vicarious redemption equates to the abolishing of one’s responsibility; which he regards as an immoral premise.(1.25 minutes).
The Christian commandment to love one’s fellow human [‘neighbour’], and particularly the call to love and fear the Christian deity or supreme being, given the sanction which will be earned by standing anywhere contrary to this call, is regarded by Hitchens as being contemptible ‘compulsory love’; for not to be in the required standing with such a supreme being will earn one the title of being a ‘sinner’, a title requisite for the vicarious redemption on offer by this deity. One of Hitchens’ central arguments is that the notion of vicarious redemption and the command to love pollutes the meaning of ‘love’. He notes that this cannot be mentally, intellectually or morally healthy. (2.25 minutes).
If there was a Supreme Being who could demand such allegiance, as would have to be believed within the Christian belief system, and who at the same time holds the threat of extreme sanction over any person for refusal to do so, would, according to Hitchens, bear the hallmarks of an eternal and unchanging “dictatorship from which there is no appeal” (2.42 minutes). This, in his summary, constitutes a “totalitarian system” (2.31
142 Leviticus 16:21-22, is cited as the text which captures the Old Testament idea of ‘scapegoating’.
“²¹And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: ²²And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”
106
minutes). A further feature of this totalitarian system is that it is in its nature to “convict us of thought crime and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions we are condemned in advance to be taken”. (2.40 minutes).
Hitchens’ concluding remarks on this section of the debate offers an unambiguous affirmation on where he stands with regard to the set of assertions recounted;
“It’s an excellent thing that there’s no reason to believe any of it to be true.”(3.00 minutes)
Whilst it must be noted that the four key points described above are by no means an exhaustive offer of the constituent elements of Hitchens’ critique of Christianity and its principal doctrine of vicarious redemption, they represent the core matrix of his responses to this central aspect of the Christian belief system and offers a sufficient entry point through which to engage the terrain further. The exploration of the various debates and presentations, which follow, will work in more detail with Hitchens critique of vicarious redemption.
Since Christopher Hitchens was neither a trained Christian theologian, nor an academic in the discipline of religion, his contributions become significantly post-structural and less cluttered by the trappings of institutionalized academia and religion, to which he owed no debt of allegiance or obligation of conformity. Whilst his approach was often considered to be confrontational, as is apparent in many of his debates and his guest appearances on various television programmes143, which may have been seen as offering his critics fair cause to marginalise the
143 Four noteworthy cases in point, in this regard are:
The BBC Intelligence² Debate : ‘Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?’.
Online Reference :
UKantitheist1 (2012). Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens The intelligence squared. [Online]. Available from : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2wzsaZKiGo>. [Accessed 13 November 2012].
Christopher Hitchens interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper on the death of Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell. Online Reference:
Tylerthepirate (2007). Christopher Hitchens on Jerry Falwell – The Anderson Cooper Show. [Online].
Available from : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIviufQ4APo>. [Accessed 28 August 2013].
The motion picture documentary on the life and work of Miss Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu – popularly known as Mother Teresa, called ‘Hells Angel’. Online Reference :
107
actual content of his arguments; to reject his contributions to the discourse, out of hand, based on him not being a trained theologian, or simply on account of a perceived understanding of his approach as being confrontational, may risk missing the substance of his arguments and his contributions, altogether.
Furthermore, to rule out his arguments, based on the assumption that they are simply crass or vulgar interpretations of holy Christian Scripture, would be disingenuous, at least, and a missed opportunity to reflect seriously and theologically upon the alternate cases on the subject of vicarious redemption. In this latter regard, Hitchens’ work, ‘God is not Great’ (pp.208-210), offers the following set of arguments as reinforcement to the case drawn from the debate with Reverend Douglas Wilson. In this section of his publication, Hitchens often refers to the subject matter as ‘vicarious atonement’ (p.209). During his debates and interviews, however, he always refers to the idea or doctrine as “vicarious redemption”.144 Having given serious consideration to the terms ‘atonement’ and ‘redemption’ in Chapter 2; it is also acknowledged that whether one is seeking to make right for a past wrong (atonement) or wishing to be ‘bought back’ from, and forgiven for, being in a perceived state of sin (redemption), the key principle being alluded to is not so dissimilar within the body of Hitchens’ arguments, so as to, in any way, reduce the very import of such arguments.145 The point made earlier in this regard, that the common thread which runs through both of these terms, when applied within Christian theology, is the common doctrinal reality that the individual does not and cannot attain ‘atonement’ or
‘redemption’ off their own doing, but only through belief in the life and death of the principal
ArkanumFour (2012). Hells Angel (Mother Teresa) - Christopher Hitchens. [online]. Available from:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG-lgmPvYA>. [Accessed 20 January 2013].
Christopher Hitchens interviewed on FOX News on Mr Joseph Ratzinger [Pope Benedict]: Captioned
"Leader Of The Church Directly Responsible For Rape & Torture of Children!”. Online Reference:
Mehdi E (2010). Christopher Hitchens on FOX News. [online]. Available from:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1>. [Accessed 20 February 2013].
144 Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, ‘Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe’. Brief excerpt from the documentary, "Collision". Online Reference
bdw5000 (2011). Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe. [online]. Available from:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-_74o2lnNk>. [Accessed 3 January 2013]. [1.19 minutes].
145 In search of a credible explanation as to why Hitchens uses the terms ‘atonement’ and ‘redemption’
interchangeably, it is noted that this study could not arrive at a definitive conclusion on this point. It is noted, however, that Hitchens’ use of either term was followed by explanations which could be considered as having sufficiently conveyed his intended meaning.
108
mover, Jesus Christ; thereby pointing to the ‘vicarious’ nature at the core of terms. With extracts from his work ‘God is not Great’, the expansion of Hitchens’ arguments against vicarious redemption is supported by the following positions.
Hitchens makes the point that human sacrifice, as an act of propitiation within a religious context was well established within the ancient world (p.208).146 However, it is in the workings of Genesis 22: 1-12 that we find the thread of human sacrifice emerge within the Judeo-Christian belief system, which sets the theological stage for the defining doctrine of vicarious redemption. To be accepting of Christianity and to submit to the provisions thereto, one would have to accept the Genesis 22 : 1-12 account, recording God’s instruction to Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice unto God and that Abraham chose to follow that instruction to completion. There is no room for a metaphorical interpretation or, to use a term often used by Hitchens himself, that there is no
‘wiggle room’ on the matter. Furthermore, not to accept the recordings of Genesis 22: 1-12 as it is presented would open the way for an ‘al la Carte’
approach to matters Christian and biblical.
The significance of the Abraham-Isaac human sacrifice scenario is that, firstly, it is a central feature of all three monotheistic faiths [Judaism, Islam and Christianity], pointing to the significance and far reaching impact of the incident. Secondly, the hand of God is instrumental as the instruction-giver for the act of human sacrifice, as well as the same God being the praise-singer over the event, albeit via the angel, for Abraham’s willingness to comply with such instruction147. Thirdly, according to Hitchens, “there is no softening the plain meaning of this frightful story”.148
146‘God is not Great’, p.208.
147 In relation to the construct of vicarious redemption which we see introduced in the New Testament, it is significant to note the point of the whole Abraham-Isaac human sacrifice saga, in the first place. It had less to do with seeking redemption than it had to do with Abraham simply having to prove that he feared God. (Genesis 22:
109
Not unlike this Old Testament account of Abraham and Isaac, which was supposedly meant to demonstrate the love of a father towards his God, the New Testament and everything built thereupon, until this day, is constructed upon “a father demonstration love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time”, according to Hitchens (2007, p.209)149, “the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans.”
In questioning the morality of the act of human sacrifice at the core of the doctrine of vicarious redemption, Hitchens notes the crux of this chain-of-blame which the Christian story-board draws him into and expounds that, had he been present at the crucifixion [human sacrifice], he would have been compelled to stop it, yet, he notes, “in consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgiven me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life” (p.209).150
Whilst Hitchens, in this section of the book, dealing with vicarious redemption, does not immediately offer the linkages, it may not be unreasonable to see within the divinely instructed human sacrifice of Isaac, the seeds of the totalitarian ‘celestial dictator’, whom Christopher Hitchens is on a literary and public crusade against. Given that the Abraham-Isaac story of human sacrifice is common to all three global monotheistic151 faiths, it may be a valid question to declare, on whether the instruction from the divine, in Genesis 22: 1-12, is the common pivot upon which the perceived totalitarian elements of all three belief systems, of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, may be found to have been built.
Vs 12). There may not be sufficient grounds to class this as an act of propitiation, as the act does not point to Abraham’s compliance with an instruction which is inspired by a need for atonement or any form of redemption.
148‘God is not Great’, p.206.
149‘God is not Great’, p.209.
150‘God is not Great’, p.209.
151 To use the term ‘monotheistic’ in the context of the plurality of faiths, where the term ‘three monotheistic faiths’, could be regarded as an oxymoron, does illustrates the contradictory elements within the respective claims made by each system of faith, as to their respective unique and singular claims to possessing the truth, which has to sit alongside one another; with all making an equal claim.
110
To examine the implications of vicarious redemption and the origins thereof, Hitchens (pp.209- 210) changes the frame of the discussion and calls for the assumption; that everything asserted about the Abraham-Isaac story and the life and death of Jesus Christ be held as being true. For a Christian to accept this premise, and according to Hitchens, it would have to follow, that;
A Christian would have to accept responsibility for the torture and pain visited upon Jesus Christ at his crucifixion and death; notwithstanding one’s absence from an act in which one had no part in wishing or executing (2007, p.209).
The person would have to accept that the trauma of the crucifixion is a necessary compensation for an earlier disruption in the relationship between God and Adam, supposedly the first human, which saw the introduction of evil into the world; also an act in which no person, present-day or post-Adam had any hand in, yet, becomes heir to this legacy of sin; a situation of collective punishment. Hitchens (2007, p.209) notes that such is the notion of sin within the Christian theological framework, that it places the present-day Christian at one and in equal status with Adam; through having inherited such original sin through the semen of the male lineage originating in Adam.
A Christian would have to accept that the event of the crucifixion was the outcome of a divinely ordained plan in which Jesus Christ had to die to complete the divine offer of redemption, and it marked the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.
A Christian would have to accept the endowment of free will, offered by the divine, with which to accept or reject the proposition of vicarious redemption.
Exercising this free will would, in terms of Hitchens’ (2007, p.211) understanding of the Christian belief system, effectively result in a choice between an eternal post-mortal life in whatever could be understood as being heaven, or the alternate, a life of eternal damnation and torture.
To accept this framework as mythological may go some way, for some, in mitigating what may be regarded as the implausibility of the whole proposition. However, it needs to be
111
acknowledged that this is not, and cannot, be the official position in the records of the Christian Church; as such a position would fundamentally deride the core substance on which this whole framework of Christian redemption rests.
In grappling with these controversies and the life and death of Jesus Christ, upon which the Christian ‘promise’ of vicarious redemption must be premised, Hitchens (2007, p.211) uses Jesus Christ’s own apparently conflicted state in the Garden of Gethsemane, to offer his determination as to what should be the response of anybody posed with the question of whether or not to accept the Passion Story and everything theological that lead up to it.
Using biblical texts such as Matthew 26: 39152;
“³⁹And he [Jesus Christ] went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, o my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Hitchens draws his summary of Jesus Christ’s appeal to God and takes the liberty of framing it in the form of the question153;
“Do I have to go through with this?” (2007, p.211)
Hitchens answers firmly that the response should not be made in the affirmative.154 Going back to the idea and practice of ‘scapegoating’, he further explains his rejection of the basis of the proposition of vicarious redemption; that,
152 Which Jesus Christ restates in Verse 42 of the same chapter, with equal reference to be found in Luke 22: 42, also.
153 Whilst a detailed critique of the publication, ‘God is not Great’, will ensue, it is important to note that its’ lack of detailed referencing, is regarded as being a significant shortcoming of the book. The critique of the book, ‘God is Not Great’, on these aspects, will be aided by the responses of Mark D. Roberts, who published his detailed analysis of, ‘God is not Great’. Online Reference :
Roberts, M.D. (2007). Christopher Hitchens: My Response to god is not Great. 6 June 2007. Patheos [online].
[Accessed 20 August 2013]. Available from: <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/god-is-not- great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response/>.
Mark Roberts is the author of, ‘Can we Trust The Gospels : Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’. (2007). Mark Roberts was a Harvard University scholar and completed his PhD in New Testament Studies and has taught at Fuller Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary.
154 Haldane, J.J. (1996). The Fine-Tuning Argument : Bayesian Considerations. In Smart, J.J.C. and Haldane, J.J., (ed.) (1996). Atheism and Theism. Blackwell : Oxford. Ch. 5.7. Haldane (p.212) describes Luke 22: 42, as Christ entering a plea to be excused before saying ‘not my will, but thine, be done’.