"Is Christianity Good for the World?" | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2007 |

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Part 4 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.

posted 5/18/2007 03:30PM

4 of 4

Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world. You point out, rightly, that loving our neighbor as we love ourselves is impossible for us, completely out of our reach. But you take this inability as a state of nature (which the commandment offends), while the Christian takes it as a state of death (which life offers to transform). Our complete inability to do what is right does not erase our obligation to do what is right. This is why the Bible describes the unbeliever as a slave to sin or one who is in a state of death. The point of each illustration is the utter and complete inability to do right. We were dead in our transgressions and sins, the apostle Paul tells us. So the death and resurrection of Christ are not presented by the gospel as medicine for everyone in the hospital, but rather as resurrection life in a cemetery.

The way of the world is to abide in an ongoing state of death—when it comes to selfishness, grasping, treachery, lust, hypocrisy, pride, and insolence, we consistently run a surplus. But in the death of Jesus that way of death was gloriously put to death. This is why Jesus said that when he was lifted up on the cross, he would draw all men to himself. In the kindness of God, the Cross is an object of inexorable fascination to us. When men and women look to him in his death, they come to life in his resurrection. And that is good for the world.

Back to Hitchen's response
Back to Wilson's response

Related Elsewhere:

Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters; and Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen, Reforming Marriage, and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking are available from Amazon.com and other retailers.

Wilson's Blog and Mablog has posts in response to God is Not Great, as well as other topics.

Hitchensweb.com has links to Hitchens' online articles.

Stan Guthrie commented in CT Liveblog about Christian-athiest debates.

Hitchens debated Al Sharpton on May 7.

Books & Culture articles about Hitchens and Wilson include:

Can You Reason with Christians? | A response to Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. (May 7, 2007)

Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You | Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit. (Books & Culture, April 30, 2007)

Book of the Week: Strange Bedfellows | Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Caldwell collaborate on a collection of political writing. Has the millennium arrived unnoticed? (Books & Culture, January 27, 2003)

Uncompromising Positions | Hitchens and Orwell (Books & Culture, November 1, 2002)

Mr. Wilson's Bookshelf | "Wayfaring Stranger" (Books & Culture, November 17, 2006)

first page |

4 of 4

share this page

May (Web-only) 2007, Vol. 51

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.

Click here for international orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 192 comments.

See all comments

Lee	Posted: May 28, 2007 4:45 PM

Hasty, all I know about your objection is that you don't like my explanation. You claim it is a non sequitur, but I thought I explained it. I'll try again: 1. We agree that humility is a sign of a high character; 2. Therefore, we would expect to see that character trait in the creator of all morality;' and 3. It is unreasonable to expect God to be less than his creation, so find me another religion that features an absolute creator who displays this particular character trait. You immediately caracatured this by speaking of a god who abases Himself before his own creation -- a neurotic god -- without explaining how a neurotic god could be the source of all goodness. Then I showed how Islam is not up to the task of showing a humble god, and your response is, 1. Nonsense, and 2. What about Hinduism? Hinduism is not monotheistic. Its gods are inhabitants of a higher continuum, perhaps, but they did not create that continuum, ergo they are mere creatures themselves.

Hasty Toweling

Posted: May 28, 2007 1:48 AM

Lee, sorry to wait so long to get back. The see-saw metaphor was a bad one, because it assumed that Christianity and Islam were the only 2 possibilities. A better way to phrase it would have been to say that the see-saw must fall to the Christianity side *before I will even consider it*. Here's the deal: Lee, you and your co-religionists claim to have a special understanding of the universe. I know you wouldn't phrase it like that, but that's what it is. My position is this: *no you don't*. When pressed why I should believe your particular "special understanding", as opposed to the "special understanding" of Scientologists and the others that contradict yours, what I get is "my version is humbler". Lee, this is a ludicrous non sequitur by any reasonable standard. I'm not trying to be mean, but Lee, you don't have any special understanding that Hindus don't have. Quite simply, you are kidding me and yourself, and I can't take this seriously anymore.

Lee	Posted: May 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Duff, well, once again, *somebody* isn't listening. I don't think I have spent *most* of my time claiming, as you say, that my ethics derive from something divine (thought that is what I believe). I have, rather, spent *most* of my time asking you why you think ethics derived from the premises of atheism carry any authority since they are *not* derived from something divine? Oh well, Hitchens has missed this point for five posts now, so you are in excellent company. But it's like pulling hippo teeth to get an answer. I'll just stop with that, because I don't think the conversation can progress until you, or someone, explains it. I'd rather hear an answer to that, than be sidetracked into some other area of contention (such as creationism).

The allotted time for commenting has ended.