Christians are commanded to love all men, but Ross Douthat explains why they had a particular and surprising affection for one of their most unrelenting antagonists:
American Christian intellectual life is sustained today, to a large extent, by the work of writers very much like Hitchens — by essayists and journalists and novelists and poets, from G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis to W. H. Auden and Evelyn Waugh, who shared his English roots, his gift for argument and his abiding humanism.
Recognizing this affinity, many Christian readers felt that in Hitchens’s case there had somehow been a terrible mix-up, and that a writer who loved the King James Bible and “Brideshead Revisited” surely belonged with them, rather than with the bloodless prophets of a world lit only by Science.
That sounds about right to me. The rest of Douthat’s column is well worth a read.
December 19th, 2011 | 11:52 am
Per:
“Recognizing this affinity, many Christian readers felt that in Hitchens’s case there had somehow been a terrible mix-up, and that a writer who loved the King James Bible and “Brideshead Revisited” surely belonged with them, rather than with the bloodless prophets of a world lit only by Science.”
Did Christians really feel there “had somehow been a terrible mix-up”? Really?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to suggest the mixup was within Mr. Hitchens himself? Especially when one glances across the pond to see the profound Christian witness of his brother. A witness made all the more profound by Christopher’s behavior (think of his treatment of Father Rutler) and his writings?
No doubt Hichens loved the language of the King James bible, that love did not cause him to fall in love with the God of the King James bible. (He made quite a bit of cash off of his strong lack of love too)
No doubt Hitchens loved Brideshead Revisited, but either his love so so blind or his atheism so strong he missed the actual point of it. Not uncommon as Waugh himself observed:
“In a letter to A. D. Peters, his literary agent, Waugh said, ‘I hope the last conversation with Cordelia gives the theological clue. The whole thing is steeped in theology, but I begin to agree that the theologians won’t recognize it.’ Nor did non-Catholic reviewers of the book recognize it. Cordelia speaks first of the closing of the chapel at Brideshead after the funeral of her mother. She tells Charles that she watched while a priest went through the prescribed steps in desacralizing a holy place, finishing by emptying the tabernacle and leaving the door ajar. ‘I suppose none of this makes sense to you, Charles, poor agnostic. I stayed there till he was gone, and then, suddenly, there wasn’t any chapel any more, just an oddly decorated room.’
“Then she tells Charles of the one escape possible from a world fallen into the hands of human beings: divine mercy. She reminds him of the evening at Brideshead when her mother read aloud from a detective story written by G. K. Chesterton, and was interrupted by Sebastian making his first drunken appearance. ‘Father Brown said something like ‘‘I caught him’ [the thief] with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world and still bring him back with a twitch upon the thread.’” Brideshead Revisited, if the author’s intention matters, is a story of some fishes lost in a great sea until they are finally hauled to safety by a jerk of the pole in the hands of the Fisher King.
“That is why the concluding episode, the deathbed conversion of Lord Marchmain, is the denouement pointed to by the perceptive Cordelia. Lord Marchmain returns to Brideshead to die after his Byronic exile in Venice. He is unrepentant for his adulterous life and proposes to leave his estate to the adulterous Julia and Charles. Despite the objections of Charles and the doctor, Julia sends for a priest. Lord March-main at first refuses to see him, thinking he has still some time to live, but when he knows that he is soon to die, he accepts the ministration of the church, receives the absolution, and manages to make a feeble sign of the cross. This act of the will shows that grace has been effectual, and that by a twitch of the line he has died safely in the arms of the church.
“Waugh’s friend [Monsignor] Ronald Knox did not much care for Brideshead Revisited, but he did like the ending. He admitted to Waugh what he had said to himself: ‘I wish Evelyn would write about characters whom one would like to meet in life. . . . But once you reach the end, needless to say the whole cast — even Beryl — falls into place and the twitch of the happening in the very bowels of Metroland is inconceivably effective.’ Waugh wrote back saying, ‘I am delighted that you have become reconciled to B.R. in the end. It was, of course, all about the death bed. I was present at almost exactly that scene.’”
December 19th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
A lot of Christians who are a lot smarter than me respected and admired Christopher Hitchens, as discussed in Ross Duthout’s article.
I respect their opinion and perhaps if I had known him, I might have felt the same. But I must admit that his charms have always been lost on me. I’m sure he was a very skilled essayist, debater, and conversationalist, but he seemed to me to use those wonderful attributes for a very ignoble cause.
I mean no disrespect for Mr. Hitchens, and I do hope that he will find peace with his Maker. I just don’t get the attraction so many Christians seem to have had for his work.
December 19th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
[...] HT: Matthew Schmitz [...]
December 19th, 2011 | 5:15 pm
sallyr
I’m sure he was a very skilled essayist, debater, and conversationalist, but he seemed to me to use those wonderful attributes for a very ignoble cause.
I think he was a person who cared about truth more than anything else. He identified the question of religion as the most important existential question facing humanity and he dedicated himself to looking at it without flinching.
As a result, he was merciless to the comfortably stupid, and the fact is many religious are religious because it is easy, because it is comfortable. He didn’t want platitudes, he didn’t want polite words. He wanted the truth and he was going to follow it even if it lead him to uncomfortable places. That doesn’t mean you have to agree he found it, but he was quite noble because the fact is most people don’t even want to look for it. As a result if you stood in his way you better know what you’re doing because he wasn’t going to cut you slack.
Those who disagree with you should be treasured if your agenda is to get at the truth. If you just want to be comfortable, go seek out toadies and sychophants. If you want to be right about important things, then you want the person whose going to tell you you’re wrong and you want that person to be as smart and as witty and as interesting as possible because if you’re really right, then you need to be able to overcome that. If you can’t, then there’s something wrong and you better start trying to figure out what it is if this stuff is really important to you.
December 19th, 2011 | 5:31 pm
Gosh, Boonton, thanks for the diagnosis. I just didn’t find him charming or admirable, but apparently that is mandatory for every right thinking person.
Duly noted.
December 19th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
Here’s the other side of the story (as they say)
“Christopher Hitchens Is Not Great” (by a Sufi Muslim at Huffington Post, no less!) Following Boonton’s advice, we should be grateful to this fellow for challenging our belief that Hitchens is in fact great. Even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Here’s a little excerpt:
Hitchens’ verbal weaponry is formidable, and sometimes even entertaining. Much of what he criticizes deserves criticism, but he conflates the excesses and abuses of authoritarian religion with the whole spiritual enterprise, because he is essentially clueless about the spiritual dimension of human experience. He offers, instead, a picture of human endeavor that amounts to enjoying your martini and not allowing yourself to be bored by the idiots trying to tell you what God does and doesn’t want you to do. Never does he admit to anything noble, virtuous, or beautiful in faith. Never does he exalt anything but the critical mind.
It’s an interesting counter-point to Douthout.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/christopher-hitchens-is-n_1_b_1158640.html
December 19th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
Per:
“I think he was a person who cared about truth more than anything else.”
And”
“American Christian intellectual life is sustained today, to a large extent, by the work of writers very much like Hitchens — by essayists and journalists and novelists and poets, from G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis to W. H. Auden and Evelyn Waugh, who shared his English roots, his gift for argument and his abiding humanism.”
The truth is, Hitchens intellectual life and celebrity status was sustained by God. He was one of the leaders of New Atheism was he not? His last interview were he gave as many final digs as he could was conducted by Richard Dawkins, was it not?
To quote Chesterton:
“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”
The irony is so rich it would cause Waugh to laugh.
December 19th, 2011 | 8:02 pm
cranky Pete
Believe it or notI agree with your counter point. when you’re as bright as Hitchens was, you end up shooting a lot of fish in a barrel. The great danger in that is if you do that too much you start to think the only fish that exist are ones in barrels. He probably could have done a better job seeking out theist targets that were not so easy, whose view of religion was something a bit better than the Jerry Falwell ones. On the other hand, he went after a lot of sacred cows that even the more sophisticated theists are too willing to write a pass for.
Anyway, I didn’t say he was great. But he was good and he was noble.
Mrs. Pepperium
“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”
Then you should be very grateful to God that he gave you such a worthy adversary. Sadly he quite rarely showed Hitchens the same favor.
December 19th, 2011 | 10:06 pm
Mrs. Pepperium
I enjoyed your lengthy quote in regards to Brideshead Revisited. Is this from a biography of Waugh or a collection of his letters? I would very much like to read the whole thing.
Your (and Waugh’s) analysis of the deathbed scene is spot on and often misunderstood by atheists. Hitchens, while clearly admiring the book, cannot fathom its importance in connection with the preceding events.
See his review of Brideshead here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/27/evelynwaugh.fiction
It’s unfortunate since Hitchens was undoubtably a great essayist and perceptive critic. But as you say, he was unable or unwilling to take the next logical step in his pursuit of truth. Charles Ryder concludes at the end of Brideshead when he last revisits the now reopened chapel and reflects about his own conversion to the ancient faith:
“Something quite remote from anything the builders intended has come out of their work, and out of the fierce little human tragedy in which I played; something none of us thought about at the time: a small red flame – a beaten-copper lamp of deplorable design, relit before the beaten-copper doors of a tabernacle; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart than Acre or Jeusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning new among the old stones.”
The act of grace eludes many – believers and non-believers alike. It is one of the mysteries of faith that Waugh captures so beautifully in the book.
“
December 20th, 2011 | 12:47 am
Per:
“’If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.’
“Then you should be very grateful to God that he gave you such a worthy adversary. Sadly he quite rarely showed Hitchens the same favor.”
Christopher Hitchens was not adversary. His fight was with God, not me.
Dialing back the heated language of adversary -we are speaking of the true religion of peace and this is Advent – in the Catholic Church besides Waugh and Chesterton (cited above) with the Church Fathers and Doctors Christopher could have found many if not most answers to his questions. Answers that would’ve been easily worthy of his formidable intellect. We can’t forget the writings of many of the Popes and Saints as well. They too would’ve challenged him, intellectually. If Catholics were too repugnant for Hitchens, he could’ve easily turned to C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, N. T. Wright, D. Bonhoeffer or even the life and death of the young martyred American Episcopal Seminarian Jon Daniels as well as many others.
Per:
“Is this from a biography of Waugh or a collection of his letters?”
An article. Here:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1321
You will appreciate the final lines:
“In any case, it seems fitting to report that on Easter morning 1966, Evelyn Waugh collapsed and died after attending solemn high mass (in Latin, of course) at his parish church in Somerset. He will be remembered for his holy laughter, and for those beguiling stories which hold out hope even for sophisticated sinners. In his novel Helena he has the saintly mother of Constantine pray ‘for all the learned, the oblique, the delicate. Let them not be forgotten when the simple come into their kingdom.’”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact