CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

A Review of The Rage Against God. By Peter Hitchens.

Jun 14, 2010

Zondervan, 2010. (Available in Australia at Koorong Books)

Atheist Christopher Hitchens has just released his memoirs, which has generated a lot of interest. His brother Peter has also released his story, but much of the media seems uninterested in the book. Perhaps it is because Peter has moved on from atheism to Christianity.

A largely secular mainstream media just does not know what to make of such conversions. It is happy to promote Christopher’s rage against God, but less willing to push a book which repudiates atheism and celebrates God’s existence.

In this brief volume Peter recounts his early turn toward atheism, and his later turn back to God. In it he also takes on the ongoing atheism of his brother. Although this is certainly a case of a house divided, it is not a polemical attack on his sibling’s unbelief, but a plea for some realism and rationality in this important debate.

The first half of the book recounts his own story, and how he became a devout atheist and Marxist in his teenage years. His story is in part a mirror image of what happened to Britain. From a great nation it has faded into obscurity, with a loss of saving faith and a loss of face-saving.

He tells how his generation largely abandoned religion, preferring instead the supposed liberation of atheism. He mentions how for twenty years he hardly ever met a religious person, and how all his peers shared in his unbelief. He is honest enough to admit that his rage against God was all about the elevation of self and hedonism.

He quotes a character in a Somerset Maugham novel: “He could breathe more freely in a lighter air. He was responsible only to himself for the things he did. Freedom! He was his own master at last.” This was the joy of his new-found atheism.

His experience of freedom was really antinomianism. Says Hitchens, “There were no more external, absolute rules. The supposed foundation of every ordinance, regulation, law, and maxim … was a fake.” He continues, “I did not have to do anything that I did not want to do, ever again. . . . I could behave as I wished, without fear of eternal consequences.”

This ‘liberation’ from moral law was supposed to mean freedom, but as he explains, all he did was move into bondage of self and sin. He went on a bender, indulging in debauched and debased rebellion. Shaking his fist at God meant living like a totally self-absorbed hedonist.

His story is the story of countless post-war Englishmen. A large abandonment of religion was coupled with a wholesale embrace of sensuality, irresponsibility and selfishness. The radical rebellion of the 60s was simply the fruit of this widespread rejection of God, authority and law.

But just as I too was once a part of this counter-culture, and now I look back in shame and despair at what I helped to unleash, so too Hitchens. He recalls his path back to God, and how he now regrets the libertinism and nihilism that his generation inflicted upon a once great nation.

He notes how his peers saw his return to God as incredulous, inexplicable. A person today can embrace any cause and engage in any activity, and we are supposed to celebrate this. But dare to affirm the Christian faith, and all hell breaks loose.

When he was a Trotskyite, celebrating the tyranny of Soviet Communism, he was seen as clever, hip and cool. But now that he realises what an abysmal police state the Marxist vision really was, and how a return to God is our only real hope of freedom and meaning, he is treated as a pariah and outcast.

And of course his famous brother is one of these voices of misotheistic hatred. Blaming religion for all our ills is a reckless and foolhardy charge to make, but the atheist fundamentalists do not bother with actually making this case with hard evidence.

Indeed, as Peter shows, the atheistic regimes of the last century have been the real sources of death, bloodshed and barbarism. Yet his atheist brother cannot bring himself to see this. Thus Peter spends a number of chapters recounting the horrors of atheistic communism, and the dystopian brave new world that was the Soviet Union.

And he notes that all secular utopians must end up in the same way. By seeking to bring heaven to earth and create the new man, but without the help of the only one who can make this possible, we only end up enslaving ourselves. And that is why the secularists so hate Christianity.

They know it is the one thing that stands in the way of their coercive utopianism. Says Hitchens, “The Christian religion has become the principle obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.”  Indeed, because he lived in the Soviet Union for several years, he witnessed firsthand the cruelty and ugliness of state-enforced utopianism.

And he sees it all happening again in England and the West. As we abandon God and moral absolutes, the raw power of the state emerges. The vacuum created by the dethroning of God does not last long. It is soon filled by false claimants to the throne.

“Only one reliable force stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. Only one reliable force forms the foundation of the concept of rule of law. Only one reliable force restrains the hand of the man of power.” It is Christianity which offers a check against this power-worship, and acts as a brake on the rush toward the deification of man and state.

And Hitchens demonstrates how so many atheists are at the same time strident leftists. The dictatorships of last century clearly confirm this, but it continues unabated today. “God is the leftists’ chief rival. Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular utopianism.”

With the widespread rejection of Christianity, all we have left is the power-hungry Muslims and the power-hungry leftists battling for supremacy. Both reject the message of Jesus as they seek to pursue their power grabs. Indeed, the “Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power.”

Peter is amazed that his brother has not yet grasped that “Utopia can only ever be approached across a sea of blood” and that “Atheist states have a consistent tendency to commit mass murders in the name of the greater good”. Indeed, “terror and slaughter are inherent in utopian materialist revolutionary movements”.

Hitchens concludes his book by mentioning a public debate he had with his atheist brother in 2008. He was pleased that it remained a rather civil affair, but his brother shows no signs of abandoning his atheistic faith. Yet he takes some hope: Christopher has abandoned his chain-smoking, which in itself seems to be quite a miracle.

If he can make this move, then perhaps he can also make a move concerning the object of his faith and devotion. Peter has made such a move, with telling results, and it is hoped that his brother will as well. In the meantime, what we have here is yet another atheist who has bit the dust.

There has been a steady stream of such conversions out of unbelief. Undoubtedly many more are yet to come. And as a result, many more books such as this will emerge. He concludes with these words: “On this my brother and I agree: that independence of mind is immensely precious, and that we should try to tell the truth in clear English even if we are disliked for doing so.”

Peter has certainly done that here, and his atheist detractors will as usual unleash their venom and hatred on him for daring to think independently, and for his apostasy from the religion of militant atheism. Well done Peter. We await your brother following suit.

[1349 words]

14 Responses to A Review of The Rage Against God. By Peter Hitchens.

  • It’s funny how many who return to God (or embrace Him for the first time) after being atheists recount how their so-called ‘freedom’ was really just enslavement to self. Only God offers true freedom. Truly, those who wish to save their lives end up losing them.
    Mark Rabich

  • Thanks Mark

    I just read that passage this morning: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?” (Luke 9:24-25).

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I did not have to do anything that I did not want to do, ever again

    I guess that’s what ‘Christians’ believe who tell others that they’re “legalist” or to “stop judging” all the time. They live the same “freedom” which as Hitchens points out leads to bondage of self and sin.
    Nathan Keen.

  • Brilliant review; brilliant conversion; the leftists, the communists and the ungodly give with their right hand and take with their left; nothing is for free whereas God gave with both hands and did so freely.
    Ilona Sturla

  • Thanks Bill. As a former would-be rolling stone this stuff means so much to me.
    Terry Darmody

  • To believe in atheism is to lose all hope. This is my life, this is all there is and when I die that’s it. Possibly for such a believer that may well be true. Such hopelessness is beyond my comprehension. I think I’ve said it before but the old saying that a man with an argument is no match for a man with an (Godly) experience always rings true.
    God has come into my life so many times how could I ever deny him now. Yet very few want to listen to what makes me choose Jesus. Most think it is just a crutch that I need to lean on yet nothing could be further from the truth. One only has to consider what is coming our way both from the words of Jesus and the revelations of John to realise that as a believer I will be required to stand firm in the faith of our lord even to the point of death. That is hardly a crutch.
    I read once a diary written by a young woman who had been thrown into Jail to await her fate in the Roman Arena solely for her Christian beliefs. She had not long had a child and her father who was in a position of authority begged her for the sake of her child and for himself to renounce her faith. She refused and was taken into the arena twice, for on the first occasion the animals ignored her. Yet she was willing to do it all again because she so loved the Lord and considered it an honour to die even in this terrible way for her faith in him. Some Crutch?
    Finally why would the disciples face such a painful death and continuous hardships just to speak about Jesus Long after he had risen. Surely if there was any doubt in their minds there could be no better time to become an atheist, Yet they gave their all in his name.
    In the face of all this you would you have to be pretty dumb to be an atheist? Even so we must persevere to turn them to the Lord, lest their blood be upon our head.
    Dennis Newland

  • “God is the leftists’ chief rival” … And yet, and yet … For so many, in the past, Socialism and Christianity went hand in hand, Christianity required Socialism, almost, it was impossible to be one but not the other. Alright, this was a very different thing than the naked power-hungry statism of these days (then, the British Labour party ‘owed more to Methodism than to Marx’ as they said). It’s once utopianism comes into it, I think, that political people begin to abandon the idea of simply improving ordinary peoples’ lives, and come to think that purely-human means can “perfect” society/humanity – and that’s when the coercion and statism creep in …
    Yes, Peter Hitchens is a very stimulating writer, very honest and passionate.
    John Thomas, UK

  • It’s so long ago that I read Lenin’s biography in which is recorded his first us of terrorism as an instrument of power – in 1905, not in 1917.
    John Angelico

  • Thanks Bill for sharing this bit of news. It is encouraging to hear that people are slowly coming back to God, and even more encouraging that God is willing and able to welcome them with open arms, when they abandon their pride and accept His truth.

    I had always thought that all forms of government (democratic, monarch, anarchy, even totalitarian, etc) can begin with the best of intentions, and for a time, if the leader or leadership body has a wise and just vision, is really good at taking care or and building up their people, then the nation will prosper…

    The problem that I’ve observed is that leadership will change… whether a change of vision, corrupting of power, or even just growing old and retiring, the established systems of governance may last a generation or two or three, but the person(s) who first envisioned them and had the wisdom, compassion and dedication to carry them through is long gone. Eventually things will change… whether for the better or worse is anyone’s guess, but it seems to go down-hill alot.

    Various science fiction have written on “immortal emperors” who live thousands of years through technology, and for the most part, their utopian societies always slowly degenerate as they personalities and character increasing change from wise benevolence to jaded, bitter and impatient, or they are usurped by selfish, corrupt, ‘evil’ peoples.

    Long story short, any form of government is “good”… so long as they can establish a system state, social and moral guidance that is “good”, to give vision and purpose to, and to prosper and grow their people to be “good”… so long as the leadership is and remains “good”, and when they step down, their successors are equally or more “good”… or, even better, if the leadership does not retire or die, cannot be killed or displaced, and remains forever wise, visionary, just, loving, capable and “good”.

    Does anyone know anyone who fits this description?

    Han Wei Koay

  • Rifkin has said: “We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.” (Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny. Viking Press, 1983, p. 244.)
    creation.com/we-make-the-rules-now
    Further, it’s strange how religion is just a product of some evolutionary process ie.Dawkins “God Delusion”, however, if you follow that logic all belief systems are an evolutionary delusion, including the atheists atheism.
    As a consequence of “… It is our creation now. We make the rules.,,” we find, for instance, first graders being given condoms (Our Children Under Siege 27/06, this blog).
    Steve Thomas

  • Some interesting thoughts on the topics raised by this book appear at:
    markdthompson.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-deep-reflection-needed.html
    Andrew Amos

  • Dear Mr Muehlenberg, you may be interested to know that next Monday I am interviewing Peter Hitchens about his book, “The Rage against God”. He joins me each Monday night at 9.10pm and next week the entire discussion will be devoted to his arguments in the book.
    You can listen to the interview online through abc.net.au/brisbane/programs/612_evenings/

    Best wishes
    Steve Austin
    Evenings Presenter
    612 ABC Brisbane

  • Great review of a book I am going to find and read!

    Jo Deller

  • Cain & Abel… The righteous & the unrighteous. Christopher never repented, as far as i know.

Leave a Reply