Doug Wilson wrote his memoir and eulogy of ‘former’ atheist Christopher Hitchens in Christianity Today. He had the opportunity to know Christopher through a series of debates sharing meals and conversation where he noted Hitchens to be “an affable and pleasant dinner companion, and fully capable of being the perfect gentleman.” Wilson apparently was privileged to see a gentler, more human side of the “infant terrible.” He confessed to one audience that if they were not careful “they were in danger of becoming friends.”
As death approached, Christopher became more and more vocal in preempting a deathbed conversion by dismissing it ahead of time as likely to be from the chemo or weakness in body and mind.Doug Wilson made the point that the notion was made while he was in his right mind anticipating that he might actually succumb to an eleventh hour conversion. Probing into why Hitchens took care to warn his fans ahead of time Wilson wrote the following:
“But Christopher actually prepared us by saying that if he said anything like this [ie., called upon the name of Jesus], then he did not know what he was saying.
“This is interesting, not so much because of what it says about what he did or did not do as death approached him, and as he at the same time approached death. It is interesting because, when he gave these interviews, he was manifestly in his right mind, and the thought had clearly occurred to him that he might not feel in just a few months the way he did at present. The subject came up repeatedly, and was plainly a concern to him. Christopher Hitchens was baptized in his infancy, and his name means “Christ-bearer.” This created an enormous burden that he tried to shake off his entire life. No creature can ever succeed in doing this. But sometimes, in the kindness of God, such failures can have a gracious twist at the end. We therefore commend Christopher to the Judge of the whole earth, who will certainly do right. Christopher Eric Hitchens (1949-2011). R.I.P.”
There is hope offered to even Christopher Hitchens! But a perceptive reader picked up on the temporary irrationality of Christians in the wake of death in which they offer hope not allowed by their subscribed theology:
“Thank you for a very informative and interesting article. Your prayer at the end (R.I.P.) is especially touching. However, this prayer would seem to be completely conditional on your belief that: “… in this life (only), the door of repentance is always open.” For later you say: “We have no indication that Christopher ever called on the Lord before he died, and if he did not, then Scripture plainly teaches that he is lost forever.” Thus your prayer “may he rest in peace” is almost being offered without any hope at all. This illustrates precisely the point where we create a contradiction in our Christian teaching. The Bible does not teach that God’s mercy stops at the moment of human death. It is appointed for us all to die “and then comes the judgment.” The word in the text is “judgment”, and indeed we shall all be judged. The mistake is that we read the word “judgment” but think the word “damnation” — eisegesis of a very serious kind.”
But Wilson simply made the move we all do when facing the conundrum of death, we stake our claim on the “last word” of life. We break from a traditional theology in favor of hope.
We believe Christopher’s days have indeed been numbered but not just his appointed day unto death and judgment but also for that appointed day when his knee will bow with every other and his tongue joins every other in praise to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2)
Read full article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/decemberweb-only/christopher-hitchens-obituary.html?start=1
Dear Friends,
First, thank you for this web-site. It’s based on good sane scholarship, yet comes at “the beautiful heresy” from a refreshingly new angle.
Second, thanks for referring to me as “a receptive reader” above. It was a surprise to start to realize I was reading my own words, although I can’t remember if I was writing under Nicolas or Tam (both related to my real name).
I like your analysis that in moments of kairos “We break from a traditional theology in favor of hope.” And I liked your finishing off with Phil 2.
As an aside, I read recently of another attempt to interpret “every knee will bow” (etc) to include forced worship by the forever damned: it went something like this: while the damned will have to confess Jesus as Lord, only believers will be able to confess him as saviour. Any comments?
Thanks again for this most interesting site.
Hi Tam, nice to meet the author of the quote! I also appreciated finding “Tam” in my box instead of “spam”. : )
Thank you for the encouragement. We are in the process of launching 2 other sites. Please check out christianuniversalism.com. Its angle is to continue to show how UR is actually coming from the DNA of the evangelical Church and being taught and supported by the very ones against it. We have attempted to reveal that here as well. It is getting clearer and clearer that this is what God is doing… “an inside job.” All we need to do it is point to “your own prophets have said…” (Acts 17).
As far as Phil 2 I believe it is a powerful passage that trumps all others that appear to the contrary. But it is only a reflection and outworking of the Gospel Event of the cross and resurrection through which everything else must be interpreted.
I have heard that argument before and it is quite a desperate attempt to make sense of this passage in light of ECT (eternal conscious torment). It seems to satisfy people but it begs a host of questions. If God will receive simply robotic obeisance from most of humanity it goes against everything that He has told us about HATING empty praise. It reduces Him to a tyrant. Even Napoleon knew the difference and noted that very observation (in a post here). If it is a forced worship He would not be truly sovereign as HE Himself defines it: heartfelt worship and obedience.
Also it is significant that it says, “Every knee will bow…to the glory of God the Father.” Not that it does not say Judge. His role at this point in time is Father to every person. And of course its origin is from Isaiah 45 where God says, “Look to Me all the ends of the earth and be saved…for every knee will bow…” God will have all looking to Him and be saved for He has said:
I forgot to add another example why “to the glory of God the Father” must mean sincere and loving worship. Just think of yourself as a parent and what would give you glory: a child standing up on the inside and hating your guts while giving you outward lip-service? (publicly) OR a child who has “come to their senses” and sees you for all the love and grace you have been trying to demonstrate to them and who now “sings your praises” to the world?
Thanks, GLW, for so full a reply. I’ve seen the other site too — all great stuff. Yes, “an inside job” that’s exactly what’s going on!
I’ve come from the more liberal wing, but so attracted by the Biblical foundation presented by Talbot, MacDonald/Parry etc, that I’ve now become more “evangelical”! The liberal wing can hardly be bothered, it seems to me.
Thanks for the thoughts on Phil 2, esp your point about “Father” not “judge” and how that fits with the OT background source. So thanks again for your valuable angle on things. Sincerely, Tam the Spam !!