The late Christopher Hitchens liked to frighten little children with horror stories about the evils of religion. Often times he was more narrowly referring to the religion of Islam, but he did not hold back from the "evils" of Christianity, either. Of all the things that offended him, the offence of the Cross of Christ was the most acute. He wrote:
The idea of a vicarious atonement, of the sort that so much troubled even C.S. Lewis, is a further refinement of the ancient superstition [of atoning sacrifice]. Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans. Ask yourself the question: how moral is the following? I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgiven me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life. [Cited by Tim Challies, quoting from Hitchen's God Is Not Great.]Against this, the Apostle Paul provides the counterpoint:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. [I Corinthians 1: 18, 23.]Hitchens, despite two millennia of human "evolution", has not moved one iota beyond or away from the Greeks of Paul's day. He is stuck in their spiritual time warp. He, like they, still finds the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to be greatly offensive--and in so doing bears testimony to the truthfulness of Scripture. He cannot help himself. Apparently, evolution embarrassingly stopped somewhere along the way.
But Hitchens's animus is useful insofar that it testifies to this abiding indictment: the crucifixion of Jesus is offensive to all but Christians. To Christians, the Cross is our glory, our power, our hope, and our motivation to love God and His Christ with all our hearts. It represents the very power of God Himself. But to Unbelievers, it is the ultimate insulting offence.
Why? Why should Unbelief find the Cross so offensive? On its own terms, Unbelief is prepared to recognise, even celebrate, the sacrifice of one for another. It concedes happily that Sydney Carton's sacrifice for Darnay, Lucie, and their child in the Tale of Two Cities was a glorious act. It acknowledges willingly that Evans's stepping outside into the freezing Antarctic cold to die in the vain attempt to save Sir Robert Scott and his colleagues was heroic, an act of true self-sacrificing love.
More deeply lies another animus. The Cross of Christ is hated because of what it says about the Unbeliever. It testifies to the evil of every man. Worse, it declares that this human evil is not a mere failure, or childish mistake, or bumbling error, or something which will be smoothed out in the endless centuries of evolutionary development. Rather, the Cross of Christ declares that every man is truly and thoroughly wicked. Moreover, it declares that death and eternal damnation is the certain consequence as we, sinners all, are indicted before a holy God. Therefore, the Cross is not just foolishness or silly or primitive or childish--it is hateful, and despicable because of what it says about us. Since it indicts humanity so powerfully, sinful hearts--being true to their nature--attempt to deflect the guilt and the blame back to God.
Thus for Christ's sacrificial cross, only contempt is forthcoming. While folk may honour sacrifice as noble, not so Christ's cross. The reason is not hard to find. It lies here: Christ was dying to satisfy His heavenly Father. Therefore, whilst Christ may be noble, God must be a tyrant. Consider this: had Sir Robert Scott asked Evans to lay down his life for his colleagues, whilst Evans might be considered a tragic hero, Scott would be regarded in a very negative light. In the same way, the cross of Christ represents an evil deity. It thus becomes an outrage, a thing to be loathed.
These deeper realities and truths had an ardent witness in Christopher Hitchens. But his rage against the Cross had a deeper, inchoate malevolence that would have been embarrassing to acknowledge. He hated God because he could not betray his own sinfulness--to which he defiantly clung until the end. He was a true scion of Unbelief.
When God confronted Adam after his rebellion, Adam protested that the fault was not his. It was God's. "The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me the fruit and I ate." Adam blamed Eve as the immediate cause of his sin. But he also blamed God as the first and ultimate cause. He implied that if God had not given him the one who was "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh", he would never have fallen into sin. Thus, Hitchens (along with all who despise or neglect the Cross as irrelevant) would indict and blame God. If there is anything wrong with humanity, it is God's fault.
There have been attempts to coat the Cross with saccharin. Unbelief can remake it into a noble sacrifice, a moral example, an heroic act by Christ. But Hitchens could see more clearly than that. He could see that the "problem" with the Cross lay not with Christ, but with the Father--that God would require this of His Son in order to save His people. It is what the Cross tells us about God which offends. But this was not all. His fulminating against God had a deeper motive. For Hitchens, it is what the Cross said about him that was most offensive. When confronted with true moral guilt before an angry God, if submission in humble belief is not possible, the only response left is bitter, sarcastic mockery, which is what he gave out.
As Easter approaches, these things will play out once again around the world. To Believers, the Cross both humbles us into the dust and lifts us to the eternal skies. We cherish the old rugged cross and all it represents--about God the Father, and His only begotten Son, and about us.
But to Unbelievers, the word of the cross will remain as it always has--folly. In this way, even Unbelief testifies to the truth of God and His Christ, despite itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment