As Christ Grew in the Favor of God

One passage in Scripture which I find most fascinating is that of Luke 2:52 - "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man."

I consider it a wondrous past-time to contemplate the humanity of Jesus Christ.  It is fascinating enough to contemplate the dual nature of our Lord, of His divinity and His humanness.  But there's a certain element of His humanity which I find extremely intriguing.  Maybe it's because I am human and find the life of Jesus fascinating, for in it He modeled the ideal human lifestyle.  He was man and yet He was the most foreign man ever.  He looked like men and functioned like men but did not act like a man.  He was dismissed by Peter, who begged the "Lord" to leave a "sinful man" like him (Lk. 5).  It must have been strange to have seen the "New Adam" walking amongst men who looked and appeared to be just like Him but were really by nature slaves to the old Adam.

In fact, I am tempted to say that one of my greatest desires would be to watch Jesus' earthly activity for a day.  What Scripture contains of our Lord is very illuminating and is surely all that God has obliged to tell us of Him, but I stop to wonder at times what the perfection in Jesus Christ looks like.  How does perfection manifest itself in the details of life?  What would perfection sound like - what words would perfection use?  Heb. 5:14 says that the sign of true godly maturity is the power of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.  But none has ever attained true, perfect maturity.  So no man who has not seen perfection can never know what perfection would look like in any given circumstance.  Moral capabilities allow us to know what is basically good and basically evil, but not even the wisest man can see the deepest inclinations of the heart, which are - as is human nature - only wicked all the time (cf. Gen. 6:5).  Thus, even in those moments which we perceive to be most perfect and holy, our wisdom is not sufficient enough (this side of heaven) to know how we are constantly sinning, in heart if not in word, thought, or deed.  So no man can properly imagine what perfection looks like in human form.

Imagine, then, the glorious wonder first-century Jews had in watching holy perfection take that human form.  It is a deep and wondrous thought.  It must have seemed foreign, for sure - indeed, His holiness must have been enough to strike anyone with awe and terror (cf. Mk. 5).  But the great paradox of Christ's humanity is that He was wholly alien to us and yet wholly akin to us also.  He was wholly alien because He was incarnate perfection, an idea that sinful man cannot even comprehend.  But He was wholly akin to us because He, like us, had to learn His perfect obedience and righteousness and develop it in His life.  He, like us, was born as a babe and had to mature like a mortal man.  He was born righteous in nature, but without the righteousness of conduct.  He was born as the Son of God, but He had to grow into that title through development and maturity.

Heb. 5:8 speaks of Him this way, "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered."  Thus, Christ, by nature, was the Son of God.  He was born with the moral capability of righteousness, as was Adam pre-fall.  Moreover, because He was divinity and God, by nature, always seeks after His will (cf. Phil. 2:13), Jesus was born with a naturally righteous will, a will inclined towards righteousness.  Thus, Jesus at birth was righteous and innocent by nature - but He had not yet lived up to that righteousness.  He had not yet done anything good or bad.  He was born righteous by nature, but had not yet lived by righteousness.

Thus, Christ had to live up to His title to properly merit it.  He was a son by nature, but had to learn obedience.  He had to live up to His title, to His identity.  He had to earn the pleasure of His Father by obedience - He had to grow in favor with God and with man.  This is a remarkable reality - that the Son of God had to earn His own title, that He had to live up to His identity in order to earn God's favor.  Christ was born as the righteous Son of God - He was born into the Father's love.  However, He still had to earn the Father's pleasure. 

It is an interesting paradox that love and pleasure are not the same thing.  It is commonplace for us to realize that a parent can love a child and yet not be pleased with him at the same time.  So is it with God.  God loved Christ perfectly upon His birth, but His pleasure towards the Son was neutral until Christ had learned obedience.

And the wonder is, the same is true for the other sons of God.  As is commonly the case, Christ sets the example for his fellow brothers and sisters.  We who are also sons of God - those sons brought out of the world by Christ and to the Father by His blood - are "reborn" into the love of God.  Those who are born again in Christ enjoy a restored nature of righteousness, Christ's righteousness imputed for them (Rom. 5:19).  However, while we now have a renewed nature, having died and risen spiritually with Christ (Rom. 6:5), we do not yet have any righteousness to befit our righteous nature.  Those who are justified in Christ are still obligated to live according to their new selves if they wish to please God.  Those who are made righteous must learn righteousness and obedience according to their righteous natures.

This means that, while God's love towards believers is unconditional (they have received justification and a new nature in Christ), His pleasure most certainly is not.  Believers do not have to earn God's love or acceptance, for this is given by grace - however, they do have to earn His favor and pleasure, for these are won by works.  Indeed, God is very concerned for the works of His children - He will reward them in differing degrees according to their works on the last day (Matt. 25:13-30, 2 Cor. 5:10, Rev. 20:13).  And so, while a believer's salvation does not depend upon works, the degree of their heavenly reward will be based on their works, on how well they have pleased God.  Even as a child is more greatly rewarded for pleasing rather than displeasing the father, so God will judge His children according to how they act favorably towards Him.  And yet, wondrously, those believers who truly strive to live to please God will find themselves less concerned about the heavenly rewards themselves than they will be about merely pleasing the Father, giving back to Him for His grace, however meager the return will be.

And so, the believer's life is not to be much different than Christ's life - after all, the Son has set the example for the rest of the children to follow.  And thus, what may be said of Christ may be said of us: that we must learn to grow in favor with God and man; that, though we are sons, we must learn obedience through suffering.  This is the true motivation for holy obedience: that we grow to please our Father more, growing in the pathways of the Son.  We are rooted in the unchanging love of God, seeking to grow in the pleasure of God.  And yet, it is even more glorious to remember that there comes a day when we - who do not even yet comprehend true perfection or know what it looks like - will be made true perfection, will please our Father perfectly.  On the day of glorification, we shall know true perfection for we shall be true perfection - and in that moment, we shall please our Lord and God entirely.  No longer will our Father look down on us in displeasure for our constant state of sinfulness; no, rather, He shall look on us with constant favor, seeing that we have grown to maturity - even to perfection - because of the grace shown us in Christ Jesus, who is the root and firm foundation of our holiness.  And that's true glory.  Rather interesting to meditate on.

Why Infants Go to Heaven

I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine recently about what happens to babies, stillborns, and mentally handicapped people (those who, mentally, are still infants) when they die.  We were discussing an old book by John MacArthur, Safe in the Arms of God (which is the last word and more than the last word on this issue).  My friend argued that MacArthur’s evidence in the book was not conclusive, that no one could know for sure what happened to every baby who dies, and that because we do not know who the elect are we cannot say all infants go to heaven.  Though I respect my friend greatly, this was a very lacking excuse. 

Douglas Wilson, Presbyterian pastor, argues in this short clip that he doesn’t know for sure what happens to babies who go to heaven.  He argues that children born to believing parents (“covenant children”) go to heaven because - for some reason with absolutely no Biblical evidence - God is gracious only to Bible-believing parents in regards to their children.  The most complete distortion of covenant theology I have ever heard.  He then says that he “doesn’t know” what happens to children of pagan parents who die—he says there is no indication in Scripture that they go to heaven.  

This whole issue of what happens to babies who die is very near and dear to my own heart.  A younger sibling of mine was miscarried when I was just a few years old.  Often, I and my brothers ask my parents, “What happened to our miscarried sibling?”  My parents always answer the same way: “He/she is in heaven.” 

Is my deceased brother/sister in heaven just because he/she was a “child of the covenant”?  Do all babies/mentally handicapped people go to heaven?  Biblically and theologically the answer is clear: yes.  All babies go to heaven.

The carefully-studied Reformed believer might immediately get offended at this.  They would come at me and say, “Don’t you believe in the total depravity of man?  Don’t you believe that all humans, including babies, are born sinners and that all sinners are damned to hell?  Don’t you believe that salvation is by faith alone and that, because babies and handicapped people are incapable of faith, they must necessarily be reprobate?”  This seems like a logical and very Reformed argument; and if it were, the Reformed position would be that all babies went to hell.  But there are immense gaps in this theology, gaps which can be mended this way: God draws all infants to himself by grace and bestows on them salvation through Christ.

Let me begin by saying that I completely affirm the natural depravity of man.  Romans 5 makes it clear that, through Adam, sin and death spread to all mankind so that all mankind sins and is guilty because of their sinful natures from birth.  Thus, even babies who are born are naturally sinful and depraved – they have inherited a sin nature from Adam’s first sin (God made Adam the representative for the human race – when he fell into sin, all mankind subsequently fell into sin).  Thus, babies are depraved.  Moreover, they commit sins as well.  They are not conscious sins, assuredly, but they certainly give into fits of anger, rudeness, envy, and the like.  Shouldn’t, then, they be sent to hell?  Certainly – babies deserve damnation.  But yet they are saved – saved by grace.

It must be noted that this “salvation of infants” is only for those under the age of accountability.  That age of accountability – the time before the intellect is matured and children are able to intellectually understand sin and salvation – differs for children.  Some children do not mature intellectually – are not able to come to an intellectual faith in Christ – for many years; some never do, and these we label as the “mentally handicapped” or “mentally retarded” (these individuals are never able to intellectually come to faith).  What, then, happens to individuals who die before they are able to come to an intellectual faith?  Do they go to hell because they have no faith?  No – rather, they are saved by grace apart from faith.

Like any good Calvinist, I believe in Sola Fide – salvation by faith alone.  However, I regard Sola Fide different from some – I believe it to be a corollary, a subpoint, to Sola Gratia (salvation by God’s grace alone).  This is because men can only come to faith if they are first led to faith by Christ through God’s grace (see Eph. 2:8-9).  Thus, faith rests upon and relies upon grace.  So, it is grace that is necessary for salvation – not faith.  Faith is only a gift which God gives to those individuals whom He calls and who have an intellectual capacity for faith.  All the elect beyond the age of accountability are saved by grace through faith.  All those below the age of accountability are saved by grace without faith.  After all, they can’t have faith – they are intellectually incapable.  Moreover, if they are intellectually incapable of faith, they are also incapable of making a conscious rejection of God (Rom. 1:18) or of committing conscious sin.  They are still sinful and depraved, but they are intellectually innocent before God because they have not consciously rejected Him. 

Moreover, Scripture never teaches that God condemns anyone to hell who has not first committed sins out of unbelief.  Rev. 20, in speaking of the Final Judgment, says that the reprobate will be condemned for what they had done (v. 12).  They are damned by their works – their sins.  Thus, all who have ever sinned (including babies) must be sent to hell, it would seem.  However, the question must be asked: what is the crime of sin?  The answer is obvious: unbelief (or, a conscious rejection and rebellion against of God).  It was this unbelief (rebellion) that even led Adam and Eve to commit the first sin.  Unbelief is always the root of all damnable works (cf. Rom. 11:20, Heb. 3:19) – it is unbelief (rebellion against God) that sends one to hell.  That is why only unbelievers are sent to hell.  Infants don’t have unbelief.  They are neither believers nor unbelievers.  They are intellectually ignorant to matters of God and sin and thus they cannot “choose” God or reject Him.  Thus, infants and all those below the age of accountability do not have unbelief and thus their sins are not conscious or willful.  Infants, though depraved, are intellectually innocent, and God saves these innocent ones by grace.  This fits perfectly with the idea that God only damns those who have unbelief. 

Infants deserve to go to hell (they are sinful and they sin).  However, God, by grace, draws them to Him, even those who do not have faith (and also do not have unbelief).  And thus, God can say in Scripture that He will only damn those who have unbelief (indicating that all those who do not have unbelief are saved by grace without faith). 

This theological truth (that those below the age of accountability are saved) is also backed up with specific examples in Scripture.  The classic example is the death of David’s illegitimate child in 2 Sam. 2.  When David and Bathsheba’s child falls grievously sick, this righteous king fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground (v.16).  He could not be persuaded to rise or eat.  He was passionately interceding for the life of the child.  However, as was God’s will, the child did die.  When David heard the news, he arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes.  And he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped.  He then went to his own house (v. 20).  Why the sudden change in attitude (a question his own servants ask him)?  It is because he knew that there was nothing he could do to bring the child back; moreover, he was at peace and without distress, knowing that the child was safe in heaven.  He says as much in v. 23: But now he is dead.  Why should I fast?  Can I bring him back again?  I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.  David was a righteous man, clearly amongst God’s elect.  He would go to heaven when he died (Ps. 17:15).  Thus, if David were to go to him (the child), the child must already be in heaven, waiting for David to join him.  This reality that David’s child was in heaven is a perfect example of how God saves those who are intellectually incapable of faith and who do not yet have unbelief.

My favorite example, however, is Job 3:11-19, which reads:

¹¹“Why did I not die at birth,
come out from the womb and expire?
¹² Why did the knees receive me?
Or why the breasts, that I should nurse?
¹³ For then I would have lain down and been quiet;
I would have slept; then I would have been at rest,
¹⁴ with kings and counselors of the earth
who rebuilt ruins for themselves,
¹⁵ or with princes who had gold,
who filled their houses with silver.
¹⁶ Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child,
as infants who never see the light?
¹⁷ There the wicked cease from troubling,
and there the weary are at rest.
¹⁸ There the prisoners are at ease together;
they hear not the voice of the taskmaster.
¹⁹ The small and the great are there,
and the slave is free from his master.

Job’s picture of a deceased stillborn is clear: they are in a place of rest and ease, free from wickedness.  He even says that stillborns have a greater existence in their death than the living do in their turbulent lives.  Yet how could this be if stillborns go to hell?  Hell is a far worse existence than here on earth.  Thus, the only possible explanation of this passage is that stillborns go to heaven, a place of perfect rest, ease, and righteousness.  They must be saved before birth by God’s grace.  And if stillborns go to heaven, so must infants who die after birth and the mentally handicapped who have no intelligence of their own.  After all, the identity of all three categories (stillborn, infant, and mentally retarded) is the same: they are all incapable of faith and unbelief, they are all depraved (by nature), and yet they are all intellectually innocent (they have not yet rejected God and consciously lived according to their sin natures).  This example gives further credence to the idea that all those below the age of accountability go to heaven – they are saved by grace apart from faith and are gathered by God to Himself.

Thus, it is both Reformed and Biblical to say that all babies go to heaven.  It is a specific example of God’s graciousness towards humanity.  He did not have to save infants, but He does.  This has nothing to do with whether a child’s parents were Christians or not – God saves the intellectually innocent by grace, not because of parental faith or the “covenant family”.  This is cause for both hope and praise.  The assembly of the righteous at the end of time will be largely made up of these infants who have been spared a life of hardship to spend immediate eternity with God in joy.  God has spared these little ones the pain of this present world, and we who must endure it will one day see them in glory.

Why I Must Be a Premillennialist

I really wish I could be an amillennialist. In the Reformed world, it seems so much easier to be amillennial and so much of their eschatology makes sense. Moreover, there is so much of the premillennial eschatology that I am not fond of. I don't like the idea of a thousand-year period in which there are unbelievers present and reproducing in the New Heavens and the New Earth (the Millennium and the New Heavens and New Earth must begin simultaneously - compare Isa. 65:17-19 and Rev. 21:3-4). I don't like the idea of two resurrections, divided by the millennial kingdom. I don't like the idea of the Final Judgment taking place a thousand years after Christ returns. It's all so strange and sounds very unorthodox. Wouldn't it be so much easier to spiritualize it as the amillennialists do?

I have often said that if a few passages in the Bible were explained to me, I would easily "convert" to amillennialism. Many people do not consider it "Reformed" to be premillennial, even a classic premillennial like myself (I prefer the term "Zionistic premillennialist", but that would be a long story). G.I. Williamson in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith and Charles Hodge in his volumes on Systematic Theology both vehemently denounce premillennialism as unbiblical. Many amillennialists claim that there are doctrinally fallible weaknesses to premillennialism (Justin Taylor and Sam Storm address a few here). They claim that the Bible teaches that as soon as Jesus returns, the Final Judgment, the death of death, and the damnation of all unbelief must take place immediately. (Dr. Jim Hamilton makes an excellent response to this here.)

I am very tempted to side with the amillennialists here. However, I cannot do so in good conscious. Here is why: there are just too many passages in the Bible that amillennialists cannot adequately explain. My favorites - the core of my beliefs - are these:

1. Revelation 20 - Many claim that the idea of two resurrections is not present in the Bible; however, here the idea is clear. They came to life...This is the first resurrection/The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended (vv.4-5). The amillennialist spiritualizes these resurrections. They claim that as there are two deaths here in Rev. 20 - a physical first death and a spiritual second death (v.14) - so there must be a spiritual resurrection in addition to the physical resurrection. Thus, the first resurrection - the resurrection of believers - is a spiritual entering into heaven and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of both believers and non-believers post-second coming at the Final Judgment. This seems a valid interpretation and is very tempting to take, but the problem rests in the Greek. The Greek word for resurrection (included in first resurrection) in this chapter is anastasis which only (as N.T. Wright has argued and Greek Lexicons affirm) refers to physical resurrection. Therefore, by linguistic analysis, there must be two physical resurrections within Revelation 20 - one for believers, and one for the rest of the dead (unbelievers). These physical resurrections are separated by a thousand year Millennium. This Millennium, then, must be physical (not a millennial kingdom in heaven), for it takes place after a physical resurrection. There seems to me to be no way around the Greek texts - Rev. 20 is not spiritual.

2. Isaiah 65 - This is a very strange passage indeed. It speaks of God establishing a new heavens and a new earth in which there shall be joy in Jerusalem (the center of the millennial kingdom - cf. Zech. 14), no more weeping or distress (the exact picture of the new heavens and the new earth in Rev. 21), in which there shall be prosperity and absolute peace. However, it says that during that time there shall be death (v.20) - that anyone who dies under 100 shall be accursed. Moreover, it speaks of childbearing - and we know for a fact that the resurrected shall not engage in marriage, the righteous medium for childbearing (Matt. 22:30). Thus, if this chapter really does speak of the new heavens of the new earth (which, by comparison with Rev. 21, it does), it must be concluded that death and childbearing (childbearing outside of marriage no less - a sin which believers could not partake in after being perfected in glory) continue on after the world has been perfected. Premillennialism, of course, is able to reconcile this chapter perfectly. This chapter speaks of the millennial kingdom. It is a time in which the earth has been perfected, believers have been glorified, Christ has returned, but there are still unbelievers present in the world. These unbelievers would then explain v. 20. It would be the unbelievers who would die after a hundred years (they are still in mortal, corruptible bodies) and who would bear children outside of marriage. These children, in my estimation, would not (as some have claimed) have a chance to come to faith during the millennium for all the elect of God have already been gathered to Him at Christ's second coming (Matt. 24:31) - thus, they shall be necessarily reprobate, as their parents will be. The question then comes up: why would God allow unbelievers and their sin into the new heavens and the new earth? After all, doesn't v.17 say, the former things shall not be remembered? Here it must be noted that life in the new heavens and the new earth for unbelievers will be anything but pleasant - they will be in the presence of a holy God and thus this existence will be, in a sense, worse than hell itself. Thus, it is not a reward for unbelievers to be in paradise (and it will not be paradise for them) - it is a punishment, completely in tune with God's nature as a judge of sin. As for v. 17, it cannot be said that this verse cancels out the rest of the chapter. Rather, it must be assumed that the former things are the sins of the believers. They shall no longer recall physically their old lifestyles, though other sinners shall still be present in the land. (It must also be noted that just because there are sinners in the land does not mean there shall be sin at a high degree - Satan shall be bound, as Rev. 20 says, so he shall not even be able to tempt unbelievers in a way that their sin should corrupt the restored world. Unbelievers in the millennial kingdom will sin - they will bear children outside of marriage, for example - but their sin shall not corrupt the natural world or believers - it shall only corrupt themselves further.) In my estimation, amillennialists cannot (at least adequately) explain Isaiah 65. After all, how could there be death and sin in the new heavens and new earth apart from the millennial kingdom?

3. Zechariah 14 - By far my favorite proof. I have never even heard an amillennialist even try to explain this passage (and, as I have heard, Martin Luther himself was forced to admit he was clueless to its meaning). Indeed, I have had both amillennialists and postmillennialists admit to me that they had no idea what this passage meant. It must be hard to ridicule premillennialism when your own views cannot even account for this piece of Old Testament prophecy. In a nutshell, Zech. 14 expands on Zech. 12-13, which tell the tale of the wholesale conversion of Jewish Israel after the famous Battle of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Zech. 14 begins by talking about the return of Christ, that He shall return to the place from whence He ascended: the Mount of Olives (v. 4). His coming shall put an end to the armies of the nations who rose up against Jerusalem during the great battle. Then, he establishes His Kingdom in Jerusalem. Amillennialists might argue that the Kingdom of Christ spoken of in Zech. 14 is really just the eternal state, not the millennial kingdom. However, there are distinctives in this chapter that indicate that it cannot be the eternal state post-Final Judgment. It speaks of the nations of the earth (strange that there should still be nations like Egypt if this is the eternal state, eh?) coming annually to Jerusalem to partake in the renewed Judaic Feast of Booths (Lev. 23). Vv.18-19 speaks of the possibility of Egypt disobeying Christ's command to partake in the Feast of Booths and the punishment of drought that should be afflicted on them if they did so. However, the very idea of disobedience and punishment is foreign to the eternal state post-Final Judgment. After believers are glorified (as they will be at Christ's second coming - 1 Cor. 15) and the reprobate are forever damned (as they will be at the Final Judgment - Rev. 20), there cannot be the possibility of sin or judgment in the perfected world like the kind mentioned in Zech. 14. Thus, this passage must be speaking of a time prior to the Final Judgment, a time in which Christ and non-believers are together on the earth. It must be referring to the millennial kingdom.

The very idea of a millennial kingdom is still fantastic to me - almost too fantastic. If I could explain it away as the amillennialists try to do, I would. However, I cannot. Passages like these, I am convinced, cannot adequately be explained by amillennial eschatology. If you could explain to me the problems of these three passages with any level of credibility, I would gladly become an amillennialist. But I don't believe you can. This is why I must, Biblically, be a premillennialist.

Why I Admire Christopher Hitchens

I think it is safe to say that most Christians cannot stand the mere mention of Christopher Hitchens.  Such a “dogmatic” atheist such as he is surely a byword in Christendom.  Secretly, many are probably glad that he is dead and scoff sarcastically about the great atheist going to “meet his Maker.”  The Christian community easily becomes uncomfortable when formidable men like him begin making their rounds in the world and many would merely write him off as a man beyond all good.  But, while I don’t at all agree with the atheistic claims of such a man as Hitchens, I can’t help but admit that I—unlike perhaps most evangelicals—hold a great deal of admiration for him. 

Hitchens was not like most atheists.  He seemed to have a clear cut understanding of much of religion, especially Christianity.  While I personally don’t believe he understood certain theological concepts very well, he knew religious history, religious texts, and religious beliefs extraordinarily well—more than most religious people, perhaps.  He relied as heavily on the Bible as any Christian might (though, of course, for very different purposes).  So his objections to Christianity are not based on ignorance but on careful study. 

His conclusions were much the same as every atheist’s.  He attacked the Bible and Christianity from science, of course, claiming that science disproved Christianity, that the two were incompatible.  However, his main attacks were not scientific (after all, he was not a scientist).  Rather, he attacked from what might be called “the Argument of History”.  In his definitive book, god is Not Great, Hitchens bases most of his attacks on religion from historical and present day religious corruption worldwide.  His argument is that “religion poisons everything”—that the root of much of evil is religion itself.  He claims that the “bigoted” notion that one has found the exclusive and conclusive rights to “truth” leads religious people to become self-centered, self-exalting, and ultimately corrupt.  Thus, the religious person becomes the exact picture of wickedness contained in passages like Psalm 10.  Psalm 10 speaks of those who deny God as oppressing the poor and crushing the helpless out of an attitude of arrogance.  This is a picture of atheism.  However, the irony is that in the modern world it is the religious people who are arrogant, oppressive, and corrupt.  While this is not true of all religious individuals (indeed, I believe Hitchens generalizes far too much in his book), it is certainly a fact backed up by analysis of historical and present-day world events. 

This is why I admire Hitchens so much.  Whether Christians (or any religious people for that matter) like to admit it or not, he is spot on in his argument.  Religion is corrupting and poisoning the world.  While this should be expected from those counterfeit religions of the Devil (all false religions), it is even so with true Christianity.  The Christian religion is far too often corrupted, leading to all kinds of hurt and oppression.  Hitchens even provides examples of Protestant Christians engaging in blatantly immoral behavior leading to the degradation of society.  In part, I believe that Christopher Hitchens is a blessing from God to the church.  He—and other fundamental atheists like him—should serve as a wake-up call to Christians.  The Argument from History is valid—Christianity is becoming wicked, evil, and corrupt, in a word: pagan.  Christians must wake up to this.

It must be noted that the Christianity too often portrayed in history is not true, Biblical Christianity.  Biblical Christianity will not corrupt society—it would certainly unnerve society (as long as society remains pagan), but “corruption” is a relative term unless it finds its objectivity in an absolute, namely God.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the label “Christian” today is living up to the standards set by the Bible or by God.  And while the worldwide community of Christianity can never entirely be fixed (there will always be wolves amongst the sheep), true, Bible-believing Christians ought to take a hint from Hitchens’ message.  Much of Christianity today is far too worldly.  Political and national Christianity is replacing spiritual Christianity; social conformity is replacing true charity and morality.  Christians are no longer merely in the world, they are fast becoming of it.  The hinge point rests on where one finds their personal worth and glory.  If one finds it in God—the fountain of true glory—then one will live for God, rather than for self, which will lead to honorability and righteousness.  If one finds it in the self—which is feeble—then one will live for the self and often seek to oppress others in the ever increasing search for personal glory.  This is the difference between true disciples of Christ and other religious people.  Don’t consider it strange that I say we must join with the late Hitchens in acknowledging that religion is quickly corrupting the world.  However, true Christianity is not like the whole of religion.  True Christian faith leads to selflessness, not selfishness, and reliance upon God, which results in anything but corruption.  A life lived in obedience to God rather than obedience to one’s natural desires will purify the world rather than desecrate it.

This point was debated by Christopher Hitchens and an opponent of his, Presbyterian pastor Douglas Wilson, in their collaborative book, Is Christianity Good for the World?  Their own collective journey, quite an interesting one, is chronicled in the documentary: “Collision of Lives”.  Douglas Wilson is a formidable Christian apologist in his own right.  Hitchens himself admits that Wilson is a step up from most evangelicals he gets, a good match for the much beloved atheist.  After contacting Hitchens during an online debate, the two began touring nationwide, filming television programs and participating in public debates.  Their relationship was one of genuine friendship; Wilson himself seemed truly saddened after Hitchens’ death.  Both present the excellent arguments for both cases. 

Hitchens was wrong in his assessment of true religion.  However, his rage over the abuse of religion—even corrupted Christianity—in the world is righteous and just.  There is much Christians can learn from this, even from an atheist.