This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« The Darfur Collection | Main | Showdown Over Filibuster Looms »
May 16, 2005
Mohler vs. Hitchens
This is the first in what I hope becomes an ongoing examination of the evangelical approach to conservatism. The lack of evangelical presence within the conservative intellectual world is no accident, and I am eager to explore the reasons behind this development. Reader comments, e-mail and trackbacks are encouraged and appreaciated.
Though the relevant pieces are a week or so old, two recent works by Christopher Hitchens and Al Mohler reveal some interesting viewpoints on the part of a leading evangelical. Though Hitchens was recently described by Hugh Hewitt as being “center-left,” Hitchens is one of the most difficult pundits to categorize. The patient reader finds much to chew on concerning his work, even if he does not agree with the author. Mohler, too, is confusing in his own way. A leader of the Southern Baptist Convention with heavily Reformed leanings, he is a fine scholar. He is conservative, generally speaking, but Mohler has yet to come out as a anything resembling a Buckley or Kirk-style conservative. The closest parallel that I can find is that of the brilliant Catholic Richard John Neuhaus, though Neuhaus’ work has for a long time been more specifically political.
It was Mohler who brought the matter of Hitchens’ view of religious conservatives to his own blog, referring to the juxtaposition of contrasting articles by Hitchens and James Taranto concerning religious conservatives that recently appeared in OpinionJournal. Hitchens’ piece clearly discusses his disagreement with, if not his disdain towards, Christianity. Nothing new there; Hitchens' atheism is well-documented. Hitchens goes on to demonstrate his opposition to a “shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity.” It is worth mentioning that the only evangelical leaders mentioned in his article are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In his own analysis, Mohler would have done well to acknowledge this tidbit. Hitchens points towards two thinkers who have been influential in modern American conservatism: Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss. Both were non-religious if not atheistic, and Hitchens is acknowledging that conservatism has heretofore allowed such thinking into its tent. (Readers interested in the fumbling talk of Pat Robertson should follow this link to the Evangelical Outpost.)
Mohler’s disagreement with Hitchens is muddled, in my own view, simply because in many cases Mohler’s point is unclear. Hitchens cites Barry Goldwater as a model conservative, a point duly noted by Mohler. Would Mohler disagree with this? I should hope not, but if so, there’s a lot of conservative – many of whom are religious believers – who would jump to Hitchens’ and Goldwater’s defense. Whereas Hitchens merely denounces a particular religious approach to politics, Mohler claims that Hitchens seeks a Right willing to denounce all believers. This is nonsense. Hitchen’s citing of Rand and Strauss is simply a demonstration of the fact that conservatism, while rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethos, has never been an idea exclusive to those who profess Christ. The Christian Russell Kirk would agree with this, as he included the works of nonbelievers, Benjamin Franklin and John Locke, to name two, in The Portable Conservative Reader. Hitchens himself defended religious conservatives (in his own unique manner) in this post-election piece for Slate.
Dr. Mohler is a wise man, and I wish very much that all evangelical leaders possessed his level of knowledge. Yet at the risk of sounding like a certain boor from Massachusetts, I wish his own writing bore a trace of nuance. Hitchens may be philosophically at odds with the Christian faith, but does not suggest that Christians stay quiet in their churches while the atheists run the land. He does, however, disapprove of a certain political approach that is embodied in the Falwells, Robertsons and perhaps even Dobsons of the world. It is not likely that Hitchens would take such umbrage at the political work of Neuhaus or Chuck Colson. While I do not fully agree with Hitchens, it is disappointing that Mohler cannot understand the differences between Robertson and Neuhuas. Until such distinctions can be made and articulated, it is unlikely that the evangelical influence on politics will progress beyond a grass roots campaign.
Posted by Matt at May 16, 2005 07:29 PM
Trackback Pings
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mohler vs. Hitchens:
» Who is the Religious Right Anyway? from PlaidBerry
In an intriguing new post at Stones Cry Out, Matt makes a good observation regarding the need to make a clear delineation between the media darlings of evangelicalism and its true scholars. In the article, Matt is looking specifically at a post by Al M... [Read More]
Tracked on May 17, 2005 11:12 PM
» Outtakes
05.25.05 from the evangelical outpost
Religious Atheism -- Science and Theology News has an intriguing interview with Tom Clark, the director of the Center for Naturalism, titled "How to be a Religious Atheist." While I obviously disagree with Tom on a number of philosophical and... [Read More]
Tracked on May 31, 2005 02:20 AM
Comments
A few thoughts. I haven't read the Hitchens piece yet, and I will try. However, I'm intrigued that he gives Rand any prominence. Most feel that Ms. Rand has be "read out" (to quote Jonah Goldberg) of the conservative movment. If he needed to find a libertarian economic thinker, I think Hayek would have been a better model, as I think Hayek has actually had much more of an influence on modern conservatives than Rand. My opinion, of course.
I would probably label Ben Franklin a Deist, rather than a non-believer. I would probably not call him a "Christian," I think, but I think Deist fits him. Interestingly, a recent article in First Things also gave some suggestions that Lock may have had Deist tendencies.
Third, we still need to nail down a good definition of Evangelical. In a sense, Neuhaus is an evangelical Catholic, as are many Catholics today who were influenced by the late Pope John Paul II. Nailing the definition of poltical conservative, which you attempted to do earlier, would also help.
I am intrigued at the complete lack of mentioning Burke these days. Many conservatives who came of age when I did (namely, the late 80s) were heavily influenced by the Burkean model of conservatism. That thought line seems to be missing these days.
Posted by: Mark Sides at May 17, 2005 01:47 PM
Mohler used the contretemps between Hitchens and Taranto has his launch point, and I think you're right, he missed some of the important particulars. My own take on the Hitchens vs. Taranto exchange is here:
http://paragraphfarmer.blogspot.com/2005/05/hitchens-vs-taranto.html
Posted by: Patrick O'Hannigan at May 17, 2005 07:07 PM
The very dilemma you highlighted has much concerned me. Not just at the most visible intellectual level, but right the way down the 'evangelical line'.
Dr Francis Schaeffer described what had happened to the evangelical mind as such in what he described as 'the most important book I have written'. As he wrote 23 that is some statement.
Toward the end of his life he began addressing some of the issues to which you allude, though not specifically from a conservative perspective.
I pursued the 'great evangelcial disaster' specifically in my book The Virtual Church (I hesitate to point out...advertised on your site!). But, essentially, my hypothesis is that the biblical and confessional worldview that once held Protestant evangelicalism (and evangelcial minds) together as 'church' has now fragmented.
Neither the evangelical individual nor the evangelical church (which, in reality, as DH Hart has said, no longer exists) knows what its confessional biblical worldview is, nor, therefore, how to apply it to our culture and world. Thus we are not reaping deep evangelical thinkers, who are systematically logical and reasoned in both their theology, thought and applied worldview.
I loved Russell Kirk's 'The Conservative Mind' - it appears to me very much the social corollary of biblical thought. But having a conservative mind is not the pinnacle to which we can aim, having a biblical mind is.
Thus we have exceptional cultural commentators (Hitchens is one, my favourite is Mark Steyn). But even they cannot align their views in terms of scriptural warrant. Those who can, like Mohler and people like Gene Veith (a Luthran, coming from a confesional tradition, by the way), are doing a fine job.
What we need are other evangelicals, in other disciplines,across the boadr as journalists, social commentators, academic professors (Mike Horton perhaps) to step more fully into the marketplace of ideas and take on the pundits.
This is preciely why I set up my website from a 'more neutral' perspective. I do not hide my evangelicalism, its plain enough, it colours my posts and published articles etc. By I don't have an 'in you face' evangelical approach. We have to start with people where they are, not where we might like them to be.
A good call for a discussion. I hope it goes well.
Peter C Glover
www.wiresfromthebunker.com
Posted by: Peter Glover at May 19, 2005 09:41 AM
John Locke a nonbeliever???
You haven't read Locke, have you . . . ?
Locke is clearly a Christian, though his orthodoxy on certain points is questionable. He wrote in defense of Christianity, in fact, and demonstrated considerable erudition in the Scriptures with his first treatise on civil government (the one no one reads anymore--the one everyone thinks of as "of Civil Government" is the second treatise). Even a solid skimming of the Essay would undo the notion that Locke was an unbeliever.
He had issues, which Jonathan Edwards picked at in significant (and I think overblown detail) with his refusal to clearly denounce the Socinian view; there is room to critique Locke harshly on the point. Unbeliever, though?
Sounds like someone hasn't read Locke.
Cheers,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps at May 26, 2005 10:39 AM