My main point of observation was a simple one. I agree with Hitchens that if one is to call one's self a Christian and expect that to mean anything, the word Christian must have some meaningful definition. If one refers to one's self as a "person of faith," there must be some defined object of belief.
You can't just take hold of a label--any label: atheist, republican, socialist, fundamentalist, optimist--and divorce yourself from the commonly understood definition of that label. I understand that labels are frequently misunderstood and very often need clarification and nuance. However, if you tell me you're a bicylist, but have no real interest or experience in riding bicycles, you will understand my bewildered annoyance.
Beyond the whole "I'm a liberal Christian" assertion made by Sewell, I found it equally amusing that her assertions to be in agreement with Hitchens failed similarly. She flattered and agreed and admired, but he would have nothing of it. I'd caricature much of their conversation as:
Sewell: "You're a brilliant guy, and we agree on so many things."
Hitchens: "You're a nice person, but you simply have no idea how many light years we are apart from each other. Please stop confusing yourself to be someone who agrees with me or with Christians."
If you're a christianish, atheistish sort of "person of faith," you will have to get used to neither Christians or atheists mistaking you as one of their own. You should not be surprised at their chagrin when you hijack their name.
In contrast to the Hitchens/Sewell conversation, you might want to check out Christopher Hitchens' relationship and dialogue with Douglas Wilson. These two guys know that their perspectives are in direct opposition to each other, and they both deeply appreciate the other's ability to recognize and confront their collision of ideas in honest argument.
A 'Collision' Of Beliefs: Atheist Vs. Theologian
NPR: All Things Considered - October 25, 2009
COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson (DVD)
No comments:
Post a Comment