Book Review: "The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me To Faith" by Peter Hitchens

I enjoy a read that surprises me by taking me in a direction I hadn’t intended on going.  When I purchased “The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me To Faith” by Peter Hitchens, I was expecting to learn more about the nuances of effective apologetics and evangelism in the context of the postmodern fallout of the cultural revolution of the 60’s and 70’s.  Instead, I got more insight into the personal dynamics of apologetics, evangelism, conversion, and the integration of a prodigal back into a church community. 

The first nine chapters of “The Rage Against God” are the memoir of Hitchens’ faith journey from “anti-theist” teen coming of age in England during the late 60’s to adult convert yearning for the lost beauty of the Church’s past.  In chapter 1 “The Generation Who Were Too Clever to Believe” Hitchens begins with a colorful description of his attempt to tangibly reject God by burning his Bible on his school ball-field as a 15 year old during the spring of 67.  This incident sets off Hitchens' description of his youthful and young adult rage against British Christianity and the Anglican Church.  In the memoir section of the book, you get a vision of a young Hitchens who was not so much pressed into a raging anti-theistic world-view by his folks or teachers; instead, we get a vision of a young man who had lost confidence in the confluence of British civil religion and the Anglican Church (more so the cooption of the Anglican church by the civil cult of Briton’s patriotic dead and Winston Churchill).   Hitchens describes being raised in a seemingly benign passively agnostic military home, which in part led him to put his sense of pride and wellbeing in England.  His schooling wasn’t a purely secular education based on humanist revisionism; his education actually included a fair amount of Bible training and theological studies.  Ultimately, In the midst of the cultural revolution of the late 60’s, Hitchens rejected an imitation-Christianity that was used to support and justify British culture cart blanche.  What he seems to have found unbelievable was a form of pseudo-Christianity that exulted the mass loss of life in WWI and WWII as some sort of redemptive sacrifice and piety par excellence, which confused the good and valuable service of soldiers with the uniquely redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Instead of lifting up Christ, the Anglican Church had begun to utilize the Christian faith to glorify the British Empire. 

The turning point in Hitchens’ life came in three parts.  The first was Hitchens’ stark firsthand experience of a purely secular humanist society of the Soviet Union and the barbaric dictator driven breakdown of Somalia.  The man-centered evil of these two failed states led Hitchens to believe that humanity cannot be the ultimate determination of truth, and, thus, arbiter of culture and society.  Second, Hitchens was struck with a fear of final judgment while viewing Rogier van der Weyden’s “Last Judgment”.  While looking at the painting, he noticed that the many figures being led off to eternal punishment looked like him and his contemporaries (real average every day people who could have been seen on the streets of any modern city).  Hitchens writes:

“I had a sudden, strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time.  A large catalogue of misdeeds, ranging from the embarrassing to the appalling, replayed themselves rapidly in my head.  I had absolutely no doubt that I was among the damned . . . I have felt proper fear, not very often but enough to know that it is an important gift that helps us to think clearly at moments of danger” (pg. 103).

Third, Hitchens’ faith was further enlivened through the rite of swearing solemn oaths in his wedding ceremony, and in the service of baptism of his daughter and wife.  He writes, “The swearing of great oaths concentrates the mind” (pg. 106)

Chapter 7 “Rediscovering Faith” was the most fruitful part of the read for me, especially the concluding section of the chapter entitled “The Prodigal Son Returns Too Late”.  Here Hitchens laments the goodness and beauty he had missed in his years as a vociferous critic of the Church.  He recognizes that the Anglican Church has become tepid and overly contextualized to the culture as a result of an inability to engage or cope with the strong critiques flowing out of the cultural revolution of the 60’s and 70’s.  In part, he holds the Church responsible, but, in a heartbreaking passage, Hitchens takes responsibility for his part in the rage against the Church which pummeled the Church into its current weakened state:

“I quickly found that I was going to have to pay immediately (as well as in other, slower ways) for my long rebellion. The church that I remembered had been a dignified body of sonorous prayers, cool and ancient music, and poetic services and ceremonies that would have been recognizable to the first Queen Elizabeth and to William Shakespeare.  During the years I had been away – and not only away but actively hostile – the Bishops had felt the waves of hatred – from people like me – beating against their ancient walls.  And they had responded by truing to make their activities more accessible to the worldly. . . The church’s solution to this unpopularity was to abandon the requirement [of confession and penitence in the liturgy], replacing it with vague, half-hearted mumblings or – more often – with nothing at all.” (pgs. 106—107, 108)

Here one gets a portrait of a man who once mocked a mime of the Church; but, now, after coming home to the Church, he deeply craves the savory meat of the full counsel of God proclaimed in the whole of the worshiping community.  As a wayward prodigal, he wasn’t rejecting the stylings of the Church; he was rejecting errors, half-truths, misunderstandings, and sins that had grown in the church.  The primary lesson pastors and church leaders like me can learn from this part of Hitchens testimony is that our faithfulness in presenting the Gospel is much more important than our attention to the details of contextualized style.  There is a suitable time and a place for pastors to consider issues of the contextualization of ministry style, but, these considerations are to be subject to and secondary to our faithfulness to a full orbed proclamation of the Gospel.  Every pastor, elder, deacon, and lay leader in the church faces this pressure on an ongoing basis: we hear from many who bemoan their inability to relate to the antiquated concept of religion; however, those prodigals who come home to the church do so with a strong craving for meaty, deep, intellectually honest Gospel content that is deeply rooted in the grand history of the Church (note the growing number of prodigals who are finding a church home in the mysticism of the Emergent Church or the ancient trappings of the Eastern Church).  What are we to do?  We are to be faithful to the Gospel first followed by the historical roots of the Church, and, then – being secondary to and subject to Gospel faithfulness – we address issues of contextualizing ministry style. 

The concluding six chapters deal with three apologetic questions specifically geared toward the current rise in a peculiar raging anti-theism (virulent atheism) seen in the sales of books like “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens (Peter Hitchens brother), “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, and “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris.  I found Peter Hitchens' apologetics to be sound because he turned the words of notable anti-religious secular humanists on themselves.  The only criticism I have of his apologetics is one of approach.  Apologetically he relies heavily upon the via negativa or negationis approach; he spends most of his effort arguing against those who champion a totally secular humanist society such as communist Russia.  As a side criticism, I don’t run into too many virulent anti-theists looking forward to the establishment of a purely secular humanist communist/socialist society.  More often than not, I run into neo-pagans who embrace religion on "their own terms", or blasé agnostics who don’t see religion as relevant or practical for daily living.  I’m glad that I have read Hitchens’ apologetic against the new-atheists; and, I’m sure what I have read will come in handy sooner or later; but, I find a need to deal with other more pressing apologetic issues at this time.  Obviously, Peter Hitchens finds himself in a much different context being the brother of Christopher Hitchens, who is one of the most notorious proponents of a religion-free totally secular humanist Trotsky-like communist/socialist society.   

My final critique of the book is that it seems to come to an unduly pessimistic conclusion about the future of Christianity.  It is as if Hitchens’ new found faith in God is so oriented toward present realities that it lacks an eschatology of hope (or any eschatological perspective).  Christ is King past, present, and eternal future.  

I am so glad I read this book.  I got a glimpse into the personal side of apologetics, evangelism, conversion, and the integration of a prodigal back into a church community.  This book taught me so much about pastoral ministry, pastoral care, discipleship, ministry integrity, the power of words in liturgy, and value of beauty and honor in worship.  I will be a different pastor because of this book (esp. ch. 7).  Oh, and I got some useful apologetic tools to boot. 

.