"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair."
- J.B. Lightfoot
Friday, December 16, 2011
Doug Wilson over at Blog and MaBlog reflects on the death of Christopher Hitchens. An excerpt:
Those who hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ must always remember that the good news of Christ is set against the backdrop of the bad news -- we are all of us sinners, and we all need cleansing and forgiveness. Christopher Hitchens did not need to come to Christ to have his arguments refuted (although that would have happened). He needed to come to Christ to have his sins forgiven.
There will be a CanonWIRED clip out shortly, in which I caution Christians against two errors -- and both of them are errors of speculation. The possibility of last minute conversions must never be turned into actual last minute conversions. No one is wished into Heaven. There have been too many unbelievers preached into Heaven at the funeral, and we ought not to give way to the false tenderness of that impulse. At the same time, the likelihood that Christopher never called on Christ should not be turned into a hard-line dogmatic statement, followed by "good riddance." No one is wished into Hell either. We ought not to greet the news of Christopher's death the way he greeted the death of Jerry Falwell's, for example.
The bad news is that we are all under judgment. The good news is that the one who has faith in Jesus may be forgiven. We must unashamedly declare these terms to the whole world -- but declaring the terms of judgment (which Scripture requires us to do) is not the same thing as playing the Judge ourselves. We leave the soul of Christopher Hitchens (and he did have a soul, despite all his arguments) in the hands of God, who will do nothing but right.
All of this is of course consistent with the affection I had for Christopher. Our prayers and condolences are with his family and friends.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6568.
Comments on "Doug Wilson on Christopher Hitchens' Passing":
2. Bill
- 12/17/2011 8:06 pm CST
I agree, nhe. I'm always sad when a known unbeliever dies, but I always hold out hope that somehow they trusted Christ before the end.
I'm intrigued by what the non-believers have told you (and I think it's awesome you teach that class - would love to hear more). Are they upset because they've been told by Christians that Ghandi is in hell, or are they upset because without Christ Ghandi is in hell? There's an important distinction there. Did you guys ever dig deeper into that?
I think that is one of the biggest hurdles to becoming a believer in Jesus. The world is comfortable with more of an Oprah faith, based on a kind of karma, that believes that the good we do is rewarded and outweighs the bad, etc. The world is not comfortable with a faith that states that without Jesus all of our righteousness is as filthy rags.
I remember before becoming a believer I wrestled with the idea of people who I though of as good being sent to hell. That's part of the offense of the gospel, the bad news that goes with the good news.
Interested in your thoughts.
3. Karl
- 12/19/2011 9:41 am CST
Sorry to jump in again before nhe has a chance to answer (and I hope he does) but in my experience, most such thoughtful nonchristians are offended by an exclusivist position on salvation that requires a knowing belief in and acceptance of the explicit NT gospel message before death, in order to hold out hope for someone's salvation. They take less offense (even if they think the whole thing is bunk) with an inclusivist position a la C.S. Lewis:
"We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn’t believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can’t read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced."
-C.S. Lewis, "Man or Rabbit?" from "God in the Dock"
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."
-C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity"
4. nhe
- 12/19/2011 11:08 am CST
It's a combination of both Bill - truly. Their gut reaction is to be dumfounded at the thought that anyone would suggest that a noble person might not be in heaven. Then, when being told/reminded that scripture is clear that no man can be saved except through Christ - they don't like that either.
We have talked in depth about it, and here's where I try to take them. I think people need to know that the Bible is not ONLY saying that no man can be saved except through Christ, but it is also saying that without Him we can do NOTHING.
I tell them the claims of Christianity are really much more radical than they even thought. And the corresponding manner in which Christ invades and changes a life is more amazing and awesome than they can dare imagine.
The whole class starts with the question "Would you rather play a starring role in the story of your own life?.....or a supporting role in the story God?.......and if the latter, what are the ramifications?"
Much more can be said, but I think the benefit of framing it this way is that we take the focus off of all the "issues" they have with Christianity, and onto just how invasive, disruptive, yet wonderful and awesome it would be if God invaded their life.....because now they're thinking, ok, if I embrace this, its not about changing how I think, its about taking a step of faith that is so radical beyond imagination that its going to completely overhaul my life......in a good way. That's where we try to keep the focus.
Karl - I think that quote by Lewis is SOOO important - it is exactly the reason why we need to speak so carefully on this subject - because (I think) Lewis is dead right on this.
5. Bill
- 12/19/2011 12:51 pm CST
Thanks Karl and nhe,
Regarding the Lewis quotes, I certainly hope he's right. I don't know that I can embrace those quotes with as much certainty as you have, nhe, but I've often thought that Salvation is going to be something we marvel at for eons.
My own thoughts start out at Only Jesus. He is the Way, and the only Way. From there I just do my best to fall into trust of God that he's got this and judges all things rightly.
If Lewis is right (and even if he's not) I think that heaven will be a surprise for many of us, both regarding who's actually there, and who receives the most of "well done, my good and faithful servant".
nhe, your class sounds fantastic.
6. nhe
- 12/19/2011 12:59 pm CST
Bill - to clarify - I was agreeing emphatically with that 2nd quote.
If I understand it right, by "know" Lewis is referring to knowing "the name" of Christ, not knowing him experientially.....if he was referring to the latter, then he'd be contradicting John 17:3.
Whereas I'm not certain that only those who "know" him (the way I think Lewis means it) can be saved through him......I am certain that I should not act as if I am certain - which is all I think Lewis is saying.
That's all I meant by Lewis being spot on.
7. Karl
- 12/19/2011 1:11 pm CST
To follow up on Bill and nhe's comments in light of Bill's question in #2, I think it's the certainty of convinced salvific exclusivists that the majority of nonchristians find *most* offensive. Exclusivists (like my pastor, for example) ARE certain that if Gandhi didn't knowingly accept Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Savior (or however they would express it) before dying, then he is in hell today. Same with Anne Frank, and any other person who ever lived, including billions of Chinese peasants and others similarly situated who never heard of the God of the Hebrews, the name of Jesus, or the gospel message. And they aren't shy about saying it. THAT is what so offends many folks.
Of course, the gospel itself is often an offense. The very need for a savior, the admittance of sin and guilt before a holy God, etc. Some nonchristian people will be offended even by an inclusivist or Christian universalist (a la George MacDonald) position. But in my experience what is most offensive to the largest number, is the dogmatically certain exclusivist position. I'm sure you can tell that I myself don't hold that position. But at this point I'm not arguing against exclusivism, just positing the observation that this is the answer to Bill's question re. what non-believers get most upset at in my experience.
8. Bill
- 12/19/2011 9:27 pm CST
Thanks Karl,
Well, there is a spectrum, of course. On one side is your Pastor, and on the other side is the karma-based "well, he was a good guy so I'm sure he's OK" stance held by, I believe, a majority of people, certainly most Western, theistic non-Christians.
Curious - what is your view (i.e., where would you slot yourself on the spectrum?)
9. nhe
- 12/19/2011 11:37 pm CST
Re: spectrum.......Bono said "grace travels outside of karma" - probably my favorite not in the bible quote of all-time.......so, sorry for the cop out, but I think its an unanswerable question. Yes, the majority of those of us in the Western Hemisphere think that nobility equals heaven. But the answer resides in Christ - apart from Karma, but also apart from human speculation.
I think the answer resides in a Keith Green lyric (strangely enough)....from "Asleep in the Light" - "the only difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn't do".
Please note, I'm not talking about works based salvation at all......but the "mark" of the true believer resides in that passage. Meaning, there will be some who did not confess Christ out loud in the way we expect (but who did take care of the "least of these") who did embrace the person of Christ in some non-specific way that would be incomprehensible to those of us who are inundated with the name of Christ.
The notion that those of us who profess Christ would also possess the litmus test by which all are measured is pretty cocky and naive.
10. Bill
- 12/20/2011 6:18 am CST
The notion that those of us who profess Christ would also possess the litmus test by which all are measured is pretty cocky and naive.
Well, I certainly agree if we're pronouncing who has entered perdition, especially people that we have no personal knowledge of.
But we do possess this: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. And we have to be faithful to that message.
My guess is that you don't disagree with that - I would be uncomfortable, for instance, if someone said to me "I don't believe in Jesus. But I do many good works, and take care of the least of these. Frankly, I behave better than most Christians. Am I going to hell?" - and I just shrugged and said "I don't know".
I mean, ultimately, it's in God's hands, but we have a gospel message that would answer that question. All our good works apart from Christ are as filthy rags.
Again, my guess is that you and I don't disagree on this. I'm just probing here. :-)
11. Karl
- 12/20/2011 8:13 am CST
I agree there's a spectrum, Bill. I have no quibble with your "I don't know" answer and it's probably exactly the same thing I would say in the context you describe. Would you agree that exclusivism is the predominant perspective within the evangelical church?
As far as where I slot myself, it would depend on how many choices I had. If had to choose between exclusivism, inclusivism and universalism I would say "inclusivism." But really I would prefer to classify myself as "hopefully agnostic" on the issue and if someone asks me what I believe about the eternal destiny of the unevangelized or Gandhi or the like, to say "I don't know, but based on God's character and these clues that I think we find in scripture here's what I think. . ." and then set out a brief sketch of inclusivism.
In practice, that makes me sound like an inclusivist b/c it's what I feel like I have reason to hope is true, without being certain. I know others who are more "pessimistically agnostic" but who sound much more like exclusivists, because while they have to acknowledge they can't actually know the fate of the unevangelized or the devout adherent to another religion like Gandhi, they really are pretty convinced those folks are all going to hell. So even though both they and I are "agnostic" on the issue we are approaching it from a pretty different direction. What I most dislike is dogmatic certainty on this or any other issue about which sincere believers can legitimately disagree.
In addition to finding Lewis helpful, I like what Dallas Willard says in "The Divine Conspiracy" - something to the effect that he believes God will save "all who can stand it" or something like that. Very reminiscent of The Great Divorce. Willard makes the case that the typical conservative focus on who is in and who is out, who avoids hell and who doesn't, misses the main point of Jesus and his mission just as much as a liberal gospel. I prefer Willard's emphasis on the Kingdom of Heaven and living as disciples (apprentices) of Jesus, inviting others into discipleship also and telling the good news that Jesus is the risen Lord who has made possible not only the forgiveness of sins, but also life in the Kingdom of Heaven starting here and now, and trusting God to save "all who can stand it."
12. nhe
- 12/20/2011 9:18 am CST
My guess is that you don't disagree with that - I would be uncomfortable, for instance, if someone said to me "I don't believe in Jesus. But I do many good works, and take care of the least of these. Frankly, I behave better than most Christians. Am I going to hell?" - and I just shrugged and said "I don't know".
I wouldn't shrug and say I don't know. I would say to the person, "the fact that you and I are sitting here having this discussion tells me that the hound of heaven may be nipping at your heels, and if that's true, resistance is futile".....I would also tell them that I believe they are accountable for hearing and consciously rejecting the gospel (without going into specifics on what that accountability looks like).
13. Karl
- 12/20/2011 9:33 am CST
Hmm, I see I read too fast and that Bill said he would be UNcomfortable saying "I don't know" to the person in the scenario he posited.
Yeah . . . I don't know how much more I would say than "I don't know" if someone hit me with that statement in that way. I guess it depends on the tone of the conversation and the context and relationship or lack thereof that I have with the person. I do agree with Bill that more needs to be said to that person, at some point. I agree that rejecting Jesus but trying to be as good as possible is not a merely neutral choice, with no ramifications. But I agree with nhe that I would stop short of telling the person they are going to hell. If they were sincerely interested and not just picking a fight I'd talk with them about the Kingdom of Heaven and what Jesus said about it, about being a follower/apprentice/disciple of Jesus and what that means, and the transformation that can happen only in context of that relationship. I'd talk to them about the gospel message of sin and forgiveness to see whether they have picked up a warped understanding of it either from secular culture or from Christians. So I guess on second thought I would hope that I had the opportunity to say more than simply "I don't know." But I also wouldn't just say "you are going to hell."
Leave a Comment:
I've had the privilege of leading several iterations (10 week series) of a small group with non-Christians at our church the past few years.
Several of them have said that the most disturbing thing to them about Christianity is having been told by Christians that Ghandi is in hell.
I've suggested to them that Christians should not speculate about the eternal destiny of any soul but their own......we've had some good discussions, and I think Wilson's point is dead on. I think I would encourage some of the people in this group by saying that I don't even speculate on the eternal destiny of Hitchen's soul, let alone Ghandi's.....I think we dispel an important misconception by doing this.