“Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well,” Christopher Hitchens argued in Toronto late last month. While most Americans received updates and news reports about Black Friday, Hitchens and former Prime Minister Tony Blair participated in a Munk Debate on Religion. The debate focused on this statement—be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world.
A crowd of more than 2,500 people turned out to watch these two distinguished men debate. Back in May 2008, nearly a year after he resigned from Parliament, Blair launched a foundation to promote respect and understanding between the major religions and make the case for faith as a force for good in the modern world. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation partners with several universities to deliver postgraduate initiatives toward this end. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, is a British author, journalist, and literary critic who describes himself as a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason. He is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and contributes to such publications as Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly, and The Nation.
The debate itself dispels the myth that modernization inevitably leads to secularization. God and religion, declared dead and irrelevant long ago, have a way of re-appearing and provoking interest. In a day of rapidly changing technology and growing threats to global health and security, questions of God remain central, not peripheral, in the hearts and minds of men and women around the world. We continue to ask questions of life’s origin, meaning, and destiny and so wrestle with claims for and against God and religion.
Lost Before It Started
The debate itself also demonstrates, however, the way in which modernization has shaped the debate. The question at hand was not about God’s existence or religions’ truthfulness, but about their respective usefulness. Is religion a force for good? To begin with this question is to concede the most crucial elements of the debate before it begins.
For example, in Hitchens’ opening remarks he posed several questions:
Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? To appeal to our fear and to our guilt, is it good for the world? . . . To terrify children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves, but their parents and those they love?
Behind each of these questions lies Hitchens’ conviction that none of these claims corresponds to truth or reality. From his perspective, there is no deity who takes sides in human affairs or holds people accountable after death for the decisions made in life.
It seems unlikely that he would ask similar questions about hard realities he believes to be true. Is it good for the world to listen to journalists who takes sides in wars and human affairs (as Hitchens has done time and again)? To appeal to our fear and guilt by informing us that unless we prioritize care of the earth, we will be guilty of its destruction—is it good for the world? To terrify children with the images of nuclear war and the risk it poses not only to themselves, but also to their parents and those they love? If good means nice or safe, then none of these topics is good for the world. If good means true or real, then we must address them.
As the debate unfolded, Blair highlighted examples of how religion inspires charity. Hitchens countered with examples of how religion motivates abuse. Yet neither man addressed the underlying assumptions in the resolution itself. In the end, style rather than substance won over the audience, and the press largely proclaimed Hitchens the winner.
Resolved—To Keep Up the Debate
While it’s possible to critique the resolution of the debate from afar, we Christians should consider another resolution—be it resolved Christians are intentionally and persuasively engaging the ongoing debate about God and religion. Could this resolution be defended? Even if we substituted the word “pastor” for “Christians,” could it be defended?
Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God provides an encouraging example of pastoral engagement in the 21st century. As much as it demonstrates persuasive argumentation, it also demonstrates compassionate listening. The book was born out of the questions and objections of contemporary men and women within the reach of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. The challenge for other pastors is not simply to read and recite Keller’s book, but more importantly to listen and engage the people within our reach.
The debate continues—are we resolved to engage it?