Muirhead Cottage

St Cyrus

Aberdeenshire

DD10 0DR

Tel (home) 44 1674 850607

Tel (work) 44 1674 662415

Email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

31 October 2008

Christopher Hitchens

c/o Author Mail

Grand Central Publishing

237 Park Avenue

New York 

NY 10017

Dear Mr Hitchens

A Scottish Response to Christopher Hitchen’s Two Challenges,

When you were in Scotland recently, taking part in the debate with John Lennox (the motion drawn up, by the way, by my Minister, David Robertson), I sent you the enclosed e mail.

Unfortunately, my topical title and timing was let down by the fact that I then joined the ranks of those people who can’t find a way to reach you!!

I hope you find my response of interest. I have posted it on the web at www.everycity.orq.uk, under Donalds Blog. I would like to hear from

you as, otherwise, I will claim it as the definitive answer to your challenges and consider the matter closed.

Yours faithfully

Donald Gillies.

Encs:- E Mail of 6^th August 2008.

Hello Christopher and a warm welcome to Scotland.

I would like to give a response to your two challenges below;

(Quoted from your talk on YouTube titled "Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07 pt1 of 2" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LKLeSKobcY).

(1) "Your antagonist has to be able do the following thing; he or she has to name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer, that could not be made or performed by an unbeliever".

And the corollary..

(2) "Please can you think of an immoral statement made, or an immoral wicked action performed by someone that could only have been religious".

(1) I am sure that you will agree that the below answer fulfils your criteria that only a believer could make this statement. That is because it is a quotation from the Bible, a normal kind of statement from a Christian! Once you read it, you will also agree that it most definitely could not be made by an unbeliever! It is taken from the book of Psalms, Psalm 14 verse 1;

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'

They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none who does good."

(I am not directing this statement personally towards you Christopher; this is God's ultimate assessment of someone who, in the final reckoning will be found to have suppressed their knowledge of God by dogmatically sticking to this position).

If you disagree that this is a 'moral statement' (as you did with 'Love Your Enemy' on the above video), then that is based only on your own interpretation of what a moral statement is. And in case you again set yourself up as judge and jury of what morality (and a moral statement) is, remember that you did not set out criteria for what moral framework your challenge was set within; you only said "a moral statement made". And that is exactly what this is; moral advice that a person who denies the existence of God is ultimately, in Biblical terms, a fool. You might not agree with it, but it is a moral statement that only a believer could make, using your own wide criteria.

In response to your challenge "a moral action performed", I enclose a summary of a famous story from Ireland (source - Evangelical Times, Dec 1996). Just watch what happens when something that was hidden in a person's life is touched by belief in God;

"In the 1920s Ulster was dispirited by serious unemployment and mass emigration. In the mercy of God a measure of deliverance came in an unexpected way. A time of revival swept away much of the terror and brought peace back to a stricken land. The instrument God was pleased to use was the unlikely William Paterson Nicholson. He exercised an outstandingly fruitful ministry in the towns and villages of his native province when thousands were brought to a saving knowledge of Christ. Throughout the province, over a period of about three years, thousands were converted. In Belfast’s Shankill Road Mission more than 2000 professed faith in Christ. In the towns and villages of Ulster many more thousands came to know the Lord. The restitution of stolen property was another feature of this work of grace. Many of the workers at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, at that time one of the largest in Europe, had come under the influence of the gospel. A special depot was set up to deal with the large quantity of stolen goods that were returned by workmen who had been converted. "

This is one of the most wonderful and just aspects of belief in the grace of God - the voluntary restoration of previous injustices once a person comes to believe in the God by Who's grace in Christ they have been forgiven and through Whom ultimate justice will be done. This is "a moral action performed by someone who can only have been religious"; since these people only did this because of their belief that God will judge even the hidden things in a person’s life and, because he has forgiven them, they must make amends wherever possible.

...I was wondering Christopher; when were you last at an atheist’s gathering where there was such public restitution of stolen property as the above? Or, how about substituting theft for one of the other nine commandments? Oh, by the way, I refer to the ten commandments since you were too sloppy in the criteria you failed to set and these ten commandments are universal. Surely you can't fault The Decalogue, can you? Which brings me to my challenge to you, in response to yours..

I challenge you to answer this question - Where can you show me a corporate restitution of previously committed wrongs as a result of a group of people embracing atheism, where wrongs are defined in terms of a universal moral code such as the ten commandments?

(2) I admire your wit here. You are correct about religious hatred being easy to detect. But your statement hides a pre-supposition to class 'religion' as one entity. I am not 'religious' in the sense of believing that God asks me to disobey or undermine the Decalogue based laws of a State, just because that State doesn't recognize Christianity as the nation's nominal religion (I do hear what you are saying here, Christopher). I am a believer in Christ, in terms of what's known as Biblical Christianity. In Biblical Christianity, we understand that God is no longer expressing His specifically ordered-intervening-immediate physical punishment (or commands to His followers to exact it) in the life of a nation. Instead, in the New Testament, Christians are called to be "salt & light"; that is, seasoning and preserving justice in the life of the nation by their moral influence and discipline. In terms of punishment, you may be surprised to hear that it is in fact the State itself that is instituted by God to exact punishment on wrongdoers. In other words, the State is "Gods servant to do you good...he does not bear the sword for nothing" (Romans 13 v 4). While you are in Scotland, why not look up 'The Establishment Principle'? You might find this view of Church and State of interest?

Including the above Christian belief in the same pot as 'religion' is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am not a spokesman for Islam. Please don't lump me in with those. You're just being sloppy again, Christopher.

So my response to your question here is firstly agreement with you, as it is morally wrong to "disobey or undermine the Decalogue based laws of a State, just because that state doesn't recognise Christianity as the nations nominal religion". Agreed. But this does not mean you win the argument - I agree with you, not in spite of, but because of my Biblical Christian belief!

But I disagree with your ludicrously wide definition of religion and, once again I have not one but two challenges for you in return. These throw a new and more helpful light on things. They follow a similar format as your own ones, but my challenge is that "you will be found to be too ignorant of how to answer the first and too blind to see the world of answers to the second";

"Please can you think of an immoral statement made, or an immoral wicked action performed by someone that could only have been acting as a Biblical Christian".

"Please can you think of an immoral statement made, or an immoral wicked action performed by someone that could only have been a practical athiest".

...and again, will you please use a universal, written moral code in your answers?

Finally, I must turn to the pre-supposition that I think lies behind your challenges here. You seem to be suggesting that 'religion' says 'our tribe have the one true way and the others are wrong and cannot do what we only can do'. Your challenge should not be allowed to hide the fact that Biblical Christians believe in what is known as 'common grace'. This can be explained by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace. Believe it or not, Christians don't think you are the devil incarnate. We actually see God's nature reflected in you! That is what you call a person's 'humanity shining through'. Are we not actually closer in thought than you might make out?

In closing..(I paraphrase your own challenge)..

I've just answered the first and I didn't avoid the second!

In fact, I have shown how your challenges should be properly viewed and properly answered! 

I won't say that my answer is a Q.E.D, but I think it's very suggestive. I pass it on for what it may be worth...

Yours,

Donald Gillies.

Elder, Free Church of Scotland.

P.S Do I get a prize for answering your challenges?