Blessings from Blasphemy

The Literature of the Heretics, pt. 9

Why, as a faithful Christian, should I ever have concerned myself with what professed non-believers—professed opponents to belief itself—have to say about my religion?

Too much of my life has been spent in devoted attention to the things I agree with and in denial of the opposition. But of course it has. This makes sense. It is easy and refreshing to read words and arguments that only serve to reinforce the things that I hold as important, and it takes far more of my attention, with the potential for far more mental anguish, to expose myself to challenges. Why not just ignore them?

I entitled this essay "Blessings from Blasphemy," but in this I don't mean to imply that one receives blessings from the act of blasphemy, nor that blasphemy should be encouraged for the purposes of blessing others. What I mean is that, though of course I would prefer it if the world as a whole was suddenly aligned to my beliefs (even though I am inclined to enjoy myself in disagreement—I would gladly give it up for the sake of such unity), as long as there are those who vehemently deny the things I believe in, there are certain benefits to be gained by, at the very least, hearing them out—benefits that, I believe, make the entire endeavor worthwhile. 

I can easily point to the two most direct blessings:

First is the blessing of knowledge. It is important to face the arguments made against even our most dearly held beliefs, for the simple fact that we claim our beliefs to be true. If we believe in truth, then our truth ought to withstand the arguments against them. I understand those who avoid the opposition simply because they do not, in a general sense, like conflict, and this I understand (to a certain extent), but to avoid the argument altogether is to admit a lack of faith.

I understand the hesitancy a Christian might feel in facing up to those who seriously question their beliefs—especially those as highly regarded as Hitchens or Dawkins, who can lay claim to countless souls “won over” from religion to non-religion. I can understand the hesitancy because I have most certainly felt it myself. No one enjoys giving audience to a person intent on destroying the things they hold dear, but this fear absolutely pales in comparison to the joy that comes in the knowledge that the arguments we have feared are, in fact, worthless. We fear these men because they are learned, only to discover that even the greatest university educations have not enabled these men to understand the faith they deride. They tear apart religion like vultures at a carcass, but when they come to Christianity, and especially the cornerstone of Christianity in Christ, they find their beaks dulled against the same impenetrable wall that has devoured argument for centuries.

There is a sense of indescribable freedom in discovering that the monster one has been afraid of was, all along, harmless as a kitten. I don't think this holds true for everyone, of course; some are more prone to be swayed by clever argument than others (and though I don't believe either Dawkins nor Hitchens to have many substantial arguments, there is no doubt that they have a talent in being clever), but for those who do truly understand the substance of Christianity, it is wonderful to discover that their arguments have no real foundation; that their true effectiveness lies in lumping every “religion” together and destroying them as a whole because Christianity taken alone can withstand every arrow. 

The second of the blessings one can receive from this sort of blasphemy is even more important, and that is the blessing of awareness. It is important that we know what we believe; it is equally important to know how others see what we believe. Christians are meant to be the image-bearers of God on the earth, and there is no doubt that this is a job that, more often than not, we mangle until it is unrecognizable. If the heretics have one talent that stands above the rest, it is the talent of pointing out the many flaws of God’s people—and these are flaws that Christians need to be aware of!

The terrible fact is that not every argument made by the heretics is untrue. Not every complaint about religion is unfounded. As I read through the works of the heretics, especially Hitchens’ God is Not Great, I found myself nodding in agreement far more often than I would have liked. Christianity may, at its heart, be truly good, but that certainly does not mean that Christians are even remotely good. We must never fall over the same stumbling block that has been hindering Christianity for thousands of years, which has seen Christian after Christian struggling to defend the indefensible; to offer an account as to why some travesty or another was actually justifiable. If the scriptures have taught us anything, it is that, first, everyone is capable of acting horribly, and, second, that God can somehow use us for good without condoning our evil.

In addition to pointing out the sins of our past, the heretics can make us aware of some of the ridiculous claims Christians still have a tendency to make which, quite frankly, makes it difficult for us to be taken seriously. As just one small example of this, I uttered a heartfelt “amen!” when Dawkins wrote that, “...in greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own.” This may not bother many as profoundly as it bothers me, but it is indicative of a larger point. Einstein was emphatically not a Christian, and he was emphatically not a Jew in any orthodox religious sense, yet I myself have heard Christians claim that he was somehow a ‘spiritual light’ among the ‘darkened’ scientists. True, Einstein was known to turn the occasional wispy, spiritualistic phrase, but he was in no sense religious. For that matter, if I was Dawkins I would also have noted that Christians do the same thing with Thomas Jefferson, who I would consider one of the great opponents to Christianity this country has ever seen. Words and phrases that vaguely smack of religion do not make one a Christian and it does not help our cause to try and lay claim to individuals simply because of their celebrity.

Dawkins is also correct in saying: “The other thing I cannot help remarking upon is the overweening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence.” Absolutely. Christians (much like scientists) are far too quick to claim certainty on matters where certainty is simply not possible, whether it be an historical item or a doctrinal point. Reading the heretics reminded me that there are points where it is perfectly acceptable to be unsure, lest I be seen (rightly) as undiscerning.

These are just a couple examples of situations where the heretics have it right, and where Christians ought to be humble enough to learn from them. Christians need to be more intellectually honest and much more open to criticism, not bristling in anger every time a non-believer points to some error or another. We need to be aware of how we are seen by others, “...that by doing good (we) should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” (1 Peter 2:15)

Finally, I want to close this series with a quick note about my choice of words (something that probably should have been mentioned at the beginning): I've had some questions about why I chose to use the word "heretics" in regard to the authors I have been dissecting—there is the sense that the word might cause undue offense. It is a fair question, and the answer probably begs for an essay by itself, but to summarize, I will simply say this: a heretic is nothing more than a person who is at odds with religious orthodoxy. No one would dare argue that either Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins venture anywhere near orthodoxy with their thinking, no one would call them fence-sitters or ‘semi-orthodox’. Not only is it fair and accurate to refer to them as heretics, it is a label that they really ought to wear as a badge of honor, as I might if someone labeled me a ‘fundamentalist’. For the word to be controversial, it really has to be applied to one believer by another. When one Christian calls another Christian a heretic it is a very serious matter—it should rightfully be considered offensive and reason for great debate. When a Christian refers to a secular humanist as a heretic, he is only using the most obvious word in the world.