Sitting down to lunch with Christopher Hitchens
From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:05:09 -0500
Eric,
Thanks for the email. Let me just ask you this. Suppose you were sitting down to lunch with Christopher Hitchens. And suppose that everything was going well in terms of cordiality. Then suppose that the topic turns to religion and spirituality and Christianity in particular. He learns that you are a passionate advocate of this particular religion - and you learn that he is rabidly against all of the above. How should the conversation move forward from there? What is the optimum outcome to be hoped for - assuming that things are going well to begin with? Do you seek to draw him out - hoping to identify his "false assumptions" and rigid "mis-conceptions" drawn from his own life-experience? Will it become relevant that [removed to respect Mr. Hitchens' privacy]- as in fact happened. Or do you conclude at the outset, "Look this isn't going to get us anywhere - You're not within in the zone where my understanding of Truth could become available to you. Let's just agree to disagree...Check please." This whole scenario seems to me to be very analogous to what is known as the Church "engaging with" the World. And again I go back to my previous question (which admittedly may be misplaced) -- namely - which set of assumptions do we start with -- those of the Church or those of the World? Do you begin with where someone else is at - or do you draw them into what for them is strange and foreboding territory? The perfect example would be regarding Gospel scholarship - Hitch would say - Oh c'mon - those gospels were written decades after the events - We don't know what Jesus really said. Polemics of the Early Church. A desperate political situation - Why trust the Church as an institution? Read Crossan - Pagels - Borg. Friedrickson. Orthodoxy is simply the version of Truth given by the victors. Now - I grant you - one can simply refuse to answer these challenges - but my inclination would be to WANT to address them. My anxiety simply has to do with not always feeling up to the task. But I am very curious how your conversation with Hitchens would proceed...Over to you...
Tom
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:05:09 -0500
Eric,
Thanks for the email. Let me just ask you this. Suppose you were sitting down to lunch with Christopher Hitchens. And suppose that everything was going well in terms of cordiality. Then suppose that the topic turns to religion and spirituality and Christianity in particular. He learns that you are a passionate advocate of this particular religion - and you learn that he is rabidly against all of the above. How should the conversation move forward from there? What is the optimum outcome to be hoped for - assuming that things are going well to begin with? Do you seek to draw him out - hoping to identify his "false assumptions" and rigid "mis-conceptions" drawn from his own life-experience? Will it become relevant that [removed to respect Mr. Hitchens' privacy]- as in fact happened. Or do you conclude at the outset, "Look this isn't going to get us anywhere - You're not within in the zone where my understanding of Truth could become available to you. Let's just agree to disagree...Check please." This whole scenario seems to me to be very analogous to what is known as the Church "engaging with" the World. And again I go back to my previous question (which admittedly may be misplaced) -- namely - which set of assumptions do we start with -- those of the Church or those of the World? Do you begin with where someone else is at - or do you draw them into what for them is strange and foreboding territory? The perfect example would be regarding Gospel scholarship - Hitch would say - Oh c'mon - those gospels were written decades after the events - We don't know what Jesus really said. Polemics of the Early Church. A desperate political situation - Why trust the Church as an institution? Read Crossan - Pagels - Borg. Friedrickson. Orthodoxy is simply the version of Truth given by the victors. Now - I grant you - one can simply refuse to answer these challenges - but my inclination would be to WANT to address them. My anxiety simply has to do with not always feeling up to the task. But I am very curious how your conversation with Hitchens would proceed...Over to you...
Tom
posted by erico at 9:03 PM
2 Comments:
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:00:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
To: "Tombot"
Thanks for your reply, Tom. You have taken me to
task, appropriately. I will try to answer your
question of evangelism from my own perspective, just
as it seems to me. I would probably be more inclined
to offer a Christology from below, as opposed to a
Christology from above. I, personally, am drawn to
anthropology as informed by Christ. My emphasis is
more on the legitimacy of what is given, the world
with its peoples, its cultures, its struggles, and
that Christ does not come to reject it in principal,
but to redeem it. I, personally, have never been
drawn to Evangelical evangelism, with its calls to
stand up and come down to the stage to be prayed over.
Some people do respond to it, but it never spoke to
me in my heart.
I have learned for myself that *I* have a certain set
of questions, stumbling blocks, that I seem to keep
running up against, and it is *that* set of concerns
that I think about. It seems to be more a question
for the intellect than the heart. For example, as a
young boy, maybe eight, ten, twelve, I don't know, I
remember being in Mass and really listening to the
words. "Christ has died" yes, I believe he really was
put to death, "Christ is risen" ok, I believe that
following him and his Way is 'life-giving', "Christ
will come again" ... mouth dropping open. Did I get
that right? "This is our Faith, we are proud to
profess it." I was really scandalized. As Steve
Martin said, "Religion just seems so arbitrary, so mythological ... I wouldn't believe in anything if it
weren't for my lucky astrology Mood Watch."
So, here's the thing. I believe that if you are
watching and struggling with faith, that enough of
your doubts will be answered adequately for you, as if
by grace, the answer will come with a touch of God, at
some point. This is not to say from an entirely
rational perspective. Understanding religion is not
the same as understanding how to fix a car. But it
isn't irrational, either.
My emphasis is on the individual seeking answers.
They have a responsibility to seek truth, to seek God.
To enter into an intricate argument with someone who
has already decided they do not believe in God and he
or she looks down on those who do, is already to have
given him or her too much advantage. Yes, that's
right. I believe that God is calling them. I believe
that they have a conscience. I believe that there
will always be *another* question to throw up in the
way. Because it will always be an act of faith to
move from unbelief to belief. They simply have to
reach a critical mass, and move from there. And it is
ultimately God who must heal, God who must change a
heart. If you are present to that person from your
own position of humble and loving faith, because you
are living and loving your God, then that is really
enough. Really. Are you seeking to answer his
objections for him, or for yourself? I wonder whether
it might be possible to have insight into the person
you are dealing with so as to try to calm those
sympathetic waves, to be careful not to bring more
noise into the ears, to give them a chance to hear.
It may only be a moment, but then it will be an honest
moment.
On the intellectual and academic front, there are
always new questions that arise from the answers to
other questions. And the Christian thinker is
involved in seeing clearly where they come from and
where they belong. So, the Christian thinker, I
believe, will be clarifying, from his faith
perspective, a line between faith and unbelief. When
it comes to conversion, though, it will always be, as
you said, two persons sitting around a table, talking
and sharing. So I hope that Mr Hitchens will allow
himself to be drawn to the humble Christian that he
needs to meet.
It matters whether the unbeliever initiates more
questions, asks for more information. Otherwise, you
are liable to fall into a contest to show who's more
reasonable. I would be more likely to fall silent
than to proffer more argument. Here's a real life
scenario. I met a fellow in San Francisco that I
naturally related to. He was an artist, a heavy
drinker, and an impressive intellect. We would go out
drinking. And enjoy repartee. When he found out I
was a Christian, he made jabs, as he did not share my
faith. I let it go, but he did not. He continued to
bring it up. It seemed to matter to him. To be
honest, I probably did not give him all that I owed
him, in sharing my faith.
Well, Thomas, I think we are getting into personal
areas here, and so I apologize if I stepped over the
line, and would ask that we continue to speak of these
important topics. I am having difficulty recalling to
mind my own thoughts about the authority of the
Gospels, the Church, at this time. I recognize the
importance of honestly and forthrightly discussing the
stumbling blocks in these and other areas. One person
cannot answer all the doubts and issues in their
particularity. Only God can. It does not surprise
me, though, that there would be stumbling blocks.
Eric
From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Reply
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:38:50 -0500
"To enter into an intricate argument with someone who has already decided they do not believe in God and he or she looks down on those who do, is already to have given him or her too much advantage. Yes, that's right. I believe that God is calling them. I believe that they have a conscience. I believe that there will always be *another* question to throw up in the way. Because it will always be an act of faith to move from unbelief to belief. They simply have to reach a critical mass, and move from there. And it is ultimately God who must heal, God who must change a heart." E.O.
"If you are present to that person from your own position of humble and loving faith, because you are living and loving your God, then that is really enough. Really." E.O.
Eric,
I whole-heartedly endorse the above quotations. Who is this E.O character anyway? Maybe you're right - the imaginary dialogue with Christopher Hitchens (or Max Weber for that matter) could really be analogous to some hidden, unconscious dialogue that we are always having with our own skeptical alter-egos. The question-asking is never going to go away...And is perhaps that a pre-condition of keeping faith alive? The whole reason-revelation dialectic...I wonder. Regarding life in academia - it occurs to me that my so-called "standing" as an intellectual is somewhat in jeopardy - given that my employment status is by no means secure as I write this. Therefore - everything that I say "ex cathedra" has a sort of ironic ring to it. Then again - philosophy is perhaps something that is better kept alive at the donut shops and truck stops.
-Tom
Post a Comment
<< Home