http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
I was very curious to watch the late writer of "God Is Not Great" debate. Would he be abrasive? Charming? Would he make the Christian cry?
My first thought was, "Man, William Lane Craig looks a lot more professional than Christopher Hitchens. More well-put-together."
My second thought was, "Actually, I like that Christopher Hitchens doesn't look as professional. He's playing it cool. He doesn't care about appearances. Like Jesus. I like that."
Then as I watched the debate, I appreciated how cordial and humble the two men were to each other (especially since, from what I understand, Hitchens wasn't always so cordial in all of his debates), though their views differ so greatly and though they are both extreme proponents of those views, very vocally trying to win others over to their sides. I'm not talking about the merits of their debating techniques here, which are tiresome for me to discuss (I don't feel like using words like "non sequitur" today), but rather the qualities of the men themselves.
I thought, I wouldn't mind sitting down with Christopher Hitchens one day and chatting over coffee if he were still alive. He was an interesting guy (and, honestly, though our position on the most important thing differs, we would agree on a few surprising things).
He had some really good points. From his line of reasoning, I can totally see why he wouldn't believe in God. Though I strive to love God with my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and though I belong to Him forever, I am by no means one-sided in my way of viewing things. I pray that I never get to a point where I can't understand people who are different from me, where I can't relate to those who don't believe. I pray that, instead, my understanding and compassion keep growing and growing.
In fact, I'm a lot more like Christopher Hitchens than I am like Jesus. Because I am a fleshly creature, who is naturally inclined to only believe what I see with my own eyes, it is still far easier for me to question God than believe Him, even after years on this journey. Faith is always a fight.
Something fascinating to me was the way Christopher Hitchens argued for the absence of a deity by talking about chaos and random destruction in the universe, how he talked about the colossal waste of so many species dying out before humans ever came to exist, etc. I have to be honest, if I started that way, I don't know if I would ever come to believe in Jesus either. Yes, the heavens declare the glory of God; yes, I look up at the stars and immediately feel drawn into a Presence that is higher than my own; and yes, the intricacy of creation leaves all men without excuse. However, without the cross and resurrection, I might never get beyond the mystery and even fear of the cosmos to actually try to know the Creator of it all.
You see, I didn't start with the cosmos. I started with Jesus.
The smallest expression of God - a human, even a baby for a time, and in some ways a child for all time ("Our Lord's childhood was not an immature man-hood; our Lord's childhood is an eternal fact" - Oswald Chambers). Not the vastness of the universe, the mysterious depths of the ocean, the colors of the sunrise. No, what enchanted me was Jesus, and I reasoned from Him onward. I continue to reason from Him onward. We Christians find Him so captivating, so romantic, so challenging to follow and yet impossible not to pursue. We fail time and time again, are constantly forced to confess our hypocrisy and basically taste dirt, so that we might have the chance of being like Him in at least some way, and being with Him forever. So intimate and lowly in his washing of his disciples' feet and in his healing of lepers; so powerful and prophetic in his defeat of death, promising that He will come again to judge and renew the whole world. When I look at Him, it's not that I still don't have questions (in fact, many of the same questions as Hitchens); it's just that they don't seem relevant to my having or not having faith. His Presence commands faith; for me, there is no other adequate response.
While William Lane Craig started with the historical resurrection and life of Jesus and reasoned from there (and therefore determined that some mysteries about God are irrelevant to whether God does or does not exist), Christopher Hitchens started with the universe and the history of the whole world (and therefore, I suppose, determined that the resurrection of Jesus was irrelevant). One spoke from intimate, firsthand knowledge of the Spirit, the other from the far-off lens of an objective observer. If you start by looking at the universe first, not being captivated by Jesus, it can sometimes seem to be just a meaningless (though awe-inspiring) ticking of events. If you start from Jesus, everything flows from Him ("...all things were created through him and for him" [Colossians 1:16]) , and the universe is all part of God's unsearchable plan and design. Though both Craig and Hitchens seemed like intelligent, likable guys in their own ways, there was no way they could ever meet in the middle.
I read that Hitchens drank all the time mainly because he was afraid of being bored. He struggled with boredom all his life, particularly with people. In my own small way, with my comparatively feeble intelligence, I can understand that problem. I still struggle sometimes with dissatisfaction and boredom when I am looking away from Jesus. It's hard to be bored with people, though, no matter how intelligent you are, if you genuinely believe each is a reflection of the invisible God, and if you want to see the Kingdom come in each of their lives. It's hard to be bored if you're constantly looking into the face of the Source of inexhaustible love, wonder, and glory.
I am terrified, as Hitchens was, as Dawkins is, by reports of religions suppressing truth, of people being brainwashed into doing horrifying things in the name of a deity, of people espousing hurtful points-of-view without being mindful of the experiences of others. I hate these things. But I don't think the answer is that there is no God. I don't think the answer is that faith is always harmful (although I would say that faith is only as good as what you place your faith in, and if what you place your faith in has no merit, then your faith is indeed harmful).
I think that often when we think of faith in a negative sense, we really mean lack of free inquiry. True faith requires freedom. When I watch Hitchens and Dawkins interview or debate with people, I notice a real and striking difference between those who have grown up with freedom to choose their beliefs and those who have been swept up in/grown up in a system that does not allow them to deviate, that does not allow them to question or hold different viewpoints. Jesus encouraged questions; in fact, He usually raised more questions than gave answers. When I talk with Him today, He continues to do the same thing. Often, I am walking in continuous questions, the only definite answer being "Trust me. Abide in me." I have learned to delight not in answered questions, but rather in Him and His Presence.
Once you experience the fullness of knowing Jesus, you forever have a different starting point. You can never look at things the same way again. For me, He lights up everything else and gives it meaning. Through my life experiences, struggles and inquiry, I can't help but start from Jesus and look onward from there. These are just my humble thoughts as I think about the very honest and true questions that people like Hitchens raise.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have
touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.... We proclaim to you what we have
seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.... This is the message we have heard from him and declare to
you:
"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
