At NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez posts an exchange between Unitarian minister Maryiln Sewell and atheist Christopher Hitchens:
Maryiln 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.
(Via: Rod Dreher)
January 28th, 2010 | 10:22 am
Having defined their terms, Ms. Sewell and Mr. Hitchens now have at least the possibility of a fruitful discussion. I am encouraged.
January 28th, 2010 | 11:06 am
Hitchens’ reply is spot on. A pity he does not believe it. It does seem as if Ms Sewell is apologising for what little faith she has and almost pleading for acceptance by an atheist!
January 28th, 2010 | 11:19 am
Christopher Hitchens, may I introduce you to J. Gresham Machen:
“Modern liberalism may be criticized (1) on the ground that it is un-Christian and (2) on the ground that it is unscientific. We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with the former line of criticism; we shall be interested in showing that despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions” ( p. 7).==
“[Theological] Liberalism on the one hand and the religion of the historic church on the other are not two varieties of the same religion, but two distinct religions proceeding from altogether separate roots.”
January 28th, 2010 | 1:51 pm
It’s a fascinating exchange. The NEXT question/answer is this:
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?”
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….
It just keeps going on like that: she keeps saying she agrees with everything he says, but insists there is still something called “faith” though it’s in a “metaphorical sense.” I almost, almost, felt sorry for her.
January 28th, 2010 | 5:03 pm
Santayana again: ” As to modernism [i. e. liberalism in religion], it is suicide. It is the last of those concessions to the spirit of the world which half-believers and double-minded prophets have always been found making; but it is a mortal concession. It concedes everything; for it concedes that everything in Christianity, as Christians hold it, is an illusion.” _ Winds of Doctrine
January 28th, 2010 | 5:58 pm
I just watched a video of this lady – Ms. Sewell – on her website, and its a very sad thing to watch. I wonder if Hitchens knew he was dealing with a rather fragile person.
January 29th, 2010 | 4:53 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brandon Dutcher, E.Weeks. E.Weeks said: Christopher Hitchens gets it right: http://tinyurl.com/yfx2jcg Everyone should follow @rofters ! First Things blog is great. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact