What do you think?
Rate this book
The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist
2016 Winner of the Gospel Coalition Book Awards “If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton had, we'd be living in a much better society than we do.” ~ Christopher Hitchens At the time of his death, Christopher Hitchens was the most notorious atheist in the world. And yet, all was not as it seemed. “Nobody is not a divided self, of course,” he once told an interviewer, “but I think it’s rather strong in my case.” Hitchens was a man of many a Marxist in youth who longed for acceptance among the social elites; a peacenik who revered the military; a champion of the Left who was nonetheless pro-life, pro-war-on-terror, and after 9/11 something of a neocon; and while he railed against God on stage, he maintained meaningful—though largely hidden from public view—friendships with evangelical Christians like Francis Collins, Douglas Wilson, and the author Larry Alex Taunton. In The Faith of Christopher Hitchens , Taunton offers a very personal perspective of one of our most interesting and most misunderstood public figures. Writing with genuine compassion and without compromise, Taunton traces Hitchens’s spiritual and intellectual development from his decision as a teenager to reject belief in God to his rise to prominence as one of the so-called “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism. While Hitchens was, in the minds of many Christians, Public Enemy Number One, away from the lights and the cameras a warm friendship flourished between Hitchens and the author; a friendship that culminated in not one, but two lengthy road trips where, after Hitchens’s diagnosis of esophageal cancer, they studied the Bible together. The Faith of Christopher Hitchens gives us a candid glimpse into the inner life of this intriguing, sometimes maddening, and unexpectedly vulnerable man. “This book should be read by every atheist and theist passionate about the truth.” --Michael Shermer, publisher, Skeptic magazine
224 pages, Hardcover
First published April 12, 2016
76 people are currently reading
1061 people want to read
About the author
Larry Alex Taunton
6 books26 followersLarry Alex Taunton is Founder and Executive Director of Fixed Point Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to the public defense of the Christian faith. Fixed Point has captured the attention of BBC, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News Network, The Christian Post, and many others. Mr. Taunton has personally engaged some of the most vociferous opponents of Christianity, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Peter Singer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
October 25, 2016
A HITCHMAS CAROL
Larry Alex Taunton apparently prides himself on being a man who never let decency or good taste interfere with the opportunity to stretch the truth for money and attention. Taunton, who couldn't win a debate against Hitchens while the erudite champion of anti-theism was alive, fancies his chances a little better now that his famed opponent is dead. [Spoiler alert, Larry still loses].
To wit: he's written a book entitled The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, which purports to reveal that Hitchens reconsidered his own atheism near the end of his fight with esophageal cancer. It further promises to disclose how the staunch unbeliever secretly yearned to embrace Christianity, but sadly was foiled by his own long-standing policy of rejecting manifestly false, historically baseless rubbish.
Upon hearing all this, I felt what I suppose many devoted Hitch fans did. Revulsion like you might experience watching, say, a video of Ted Cruz naked and aroused in a shower, passionately tongue-kissing his own elderly mother. In other words, someone there is clearly enjoying himself immensely, and just as clearly he really shouldn’t oughta be.
What to do, though? The principal conversations Taunton cites as evidence are alleged to have occurred on two long-distance car rides. Only he and Hitchens were present and only they could accurately report on the exchange. Unfortunately one of these two men currently lacks functioning brain cells and the other one is dead.
The solution came to me late the other night. And I mean it truly came to me.
I lay awake in bed, troubled at that time by a different ethical dilemma. I was weighing whether in toto it would be better to have Donald Trump heading the executive branch of the US government, or to gut myself with broken glass and devour my own full, hot bowels. It felt like a toss-up and I just couldn’t decide.
Sometime past two-thirty, as I was about to get up and look for a bottle to shatter (just in case), I heard a familiar voice.
“Sorry to interrupt your reverie, but you wouldn't happen to have a decent whiskey handy, would you? Damned hard to come by where I've been lately.”
I looked to the foot of my bed, already as certain of what I would see there as I was incredulous. That mellifluous RP accent, the spark of dark humor, the very nature of the request itself. And as I watched, the ghost of Christopher Hitchens materialized in my bedroom, raising an empty lowball glass in a hand nearly as transparent.
He twiddled his glass and offered a wry smile. “Spiritu a spiritum?”
“Sounds appropriate.” I don’t have much Latin, but in context this was pretty easy to make out. Spirits for a spirit. Whatever else he’d lost in death, Hitchens had kept his wits.
I arose from bed, donned my robe, and led the late literary pugilist into my study. There I cracked opened a lovely, twelve year old single malt I'd been saving for the death of George W. Bush. (This was easily as special an occasion.) I poured out one finger for each of us. Hitchens arched a spectral brow. I poured him two. He nodded his approval, and I handed him back his glass.
He looked surprisingly hale and hearty for a dead man. His hair, once depilated by chemo-therapy, was again full and delightfully unkempt. He wore a slightly rumpled suit of a light tan. His skin, though diaphanous, still held a better color than it had in his final days. We stood facing each other in front of the desk at which I am seated now, writing this account.
The great polemicist’s poltergeist lifted his glass in a silent toast and took a nip. I watched in fascination, half-expecting the expensive, golden liquid to dribble through his chin to the floor. It did not. All of which only added to my understandable curiosity.
“You mentioned ‘where I’ve been lately,’” I said.
“I did indeed.” He met my gaze with those wonderfully large and intelligent eyes that always seemed to suggest lugubrious depths, despite their sparkle.
“I’ve, uh, always wanted to know a bit more about ... that.” Stumbling a little on the immensity of what I was really asking.
“I’m afraid I can’t help you there.” He paused, then added, “I mean quite literally, I cannot.”
“Really?”
I puzzled over his precise choice of language. Was he saying that mere words would be inadequate to the task, or was there some sort of rule book the departed were privy to and perhaps bound by? I took a sip of whiskey myself and waited, letting the silence hang there between us in the hopes it might induce some minor enlargement on this cryptic statement.
Hitchens waited too.
After a few moments it occurred to me he had something of an edge there, inasmuch as he could stand here for all eternity if he liked, and I had at most about half a mortal lifespan remaining to spend.
“All right,” I said at last, “but I still have to ask...”
“The God question, yes. I should think the interview would be considered woefully incomplete without it.”
“I’m not interviewing you,” I lied. Somewhere in the back of my mind a number like five hundred thousand views was tickling my awareness.
Hitchens scoffed. “Well, why on earth wouldn't you be? Good Christ, man, of all of the interviews I've ever given, this surely rates among the most interesting. I'd say a half million views was selling us fairly short.”
A chill ran down my spine to my feet, bare and blue in the moonlight seeping in through my study window. He can hear my thoughts. Holy shit. So he's hearing this thought too. And this one. I can't, I have to ... seven times seven is forty-nine, eight times seven is fifty-six, nine times seven is, um ...
“I don't know how long you can keep that up, old boy, but it's not necessary. You want me to stay out of your head, I give you a gentlemen's word I will stay out. For the remainder of this thing that is not an interview.” He winked.
I took a deep breath and made a concerted effort to pull myself together. “Good enough for me, Mr. Hitchens.”
“Christopher is fine.”
I felt my eyes misting up. I blinked and swallowed hard. The swirl of emotions was making me a bit dizzy. Or was it the whiskey? Didn't matter. It actually felt pretty good.
“So, Christopher, is there a God or not? And did you turn to Him, like Taunton is saying? Or, I don’t know, did you want to? I guess that’s more what he’s suggesting.”
“Yes.”
“What?!”
“Yes, that’s what he is suggesting. He’s not saying I converted on my death bed. He doesn’t have the bollocks for that apparently. At any rate my wife was with me in those days and hours and she can refute that. He is saying that I reconsidered my atheistic convictions.”
“And...?” I braced myself for the answer.
“And what do you think? I’m not dodging the question — I truly want your take on all of all this, and I’ve already promised to get it the old-fashioned way.”
I felt the anger as heat in my face and neck. “It’s bullshit. I mean, you predicted this. They did the same thing with Voltaire, and Hume, and Ingersoll, and ... well they always do this.”
“True enough.”
“And you said on video that if you ever spewed any such thing, you know, ‘I found Jesus,’ or whatever, that it would be the product of, of madness and medication.”
“I didn’t put it quite that way, but I like the alliteration. Nice little turn of phrase.”
“Thanks.” I think I blushed.
Hitchens fixed me with a hard stare. “So then, you actually know Taunton has been lying.”
“I ... yes.” I felt a thrill of fear for the first time that night, despite that for several minutes I’d already been talking with a phantom. Because I saw now what was at stake here. And it was more than my unabashed love and admiration for this man. “Maybe ‘know’ isn’t the right ... it’s all just too out of character.”
“Because the dying never act out of character. And besides, you and I were always so very close in life.”
The dizziness sank from my head to my stomach and I began to feel a bit sick. “I don’t think I want to play this game.”
“No, no, no, there’s nothing for it but to push on now.”
I looked straight ahead, noticing for the first time that I could make out the second hand of my study’s wall clock ticking behind him. I didn’t miss the irony. I could peer through his head, but not into it. “All right. So is it true? Taunton doesn’t say you converted, not exactly. He says you wanted to, but you balked at the cost. Which is worse, really.”
“Yes. Because that would mean I cynically kept to my original position out of sheer vanity. To protect my precious persona.”
“Yes.” I paused.“So...”
Hitchens, or this phantasm of him or this dream of him or this undigested bit of beef, took another sip of whiskey.
When he looked at me again, the sadness in his eyes was tangible not tacit. “And what if I flat out told you it wasn’t true? What if I said Taunton conveniently mistook my rather extraordinary ability to enjoy true friendship with people who hold wildly different views as evidence that I longed to join them in those beliefs? What if I said that his and my reading aloud from the gospel of John at length — and we did, mind you — amounted to no more than the usual discussion and debate prep. In this case for the very contests to which we were then en route. What if I told you all of that? Would you then know the truth?”
I took a deep breath. “No. I still wouldn’t know.”
He gave a single nod. “The one and only correct answer.”
“I would believe you, though.”
He swirled his whiskey glass, watching it intently. “And what if some recordings emerged which supported everything Taunton is suggesting? That I saw the light and couldn’t face its glare. Or pure narcissism got in the way. What say you then?”
“Then I’d be mortified.”
He looked up with a bemused expression. “No more than I.”
“I might wonder if they were fakes. No, I would wonder. And I’d want them to be fakes. I’m afraid I’d want that a lot.”
“Fair enough.” He spread his arms wide in an expansive gesture. “We all want certain things to be true, if we’re honest. But when it comes to beliefs, desire isn’t data. Never conflate the two, because that way madness lies.”
“This is what you meant before, isn’t it? When I said how I wanted to know about ... where you’ve been. And you said you couldn’t help.”
“Couldn’t help you to know. About any of it, including the God question. The evidence alone can accomplish that. No mere account can pull it off, regardless of how respected the individual who conveys it or how ancient and revered the book that contains it. Eventually you’ll see for yourself.”
I jumped on that. “I will?”
“Or you won’t. You’re not going to catch me out that easily. Some questions can’t be answered. Life fairly seethes with uncertainty, my friend.”
“Yeah. I hate that.”
“Well, don’t.” He narrowed his eyes and sharpened his voice. “I’m as deadly serious right now as only the dead can be. There’s nothing the matter with uncertainty. That’s their disease not ours. They’re the ones so desperate for answers they take the collected press releases of a Bronze Age tribe as the revealed Truth.” He set his glass down on my desk blotter and continued in an almost fatherly tone. “Uncertainty is a glorious thing, Lee, and I’ll tell you why. Because where there is certainty there is no more possibility. Those antipodes cannot exist in the same mind at the same time. So cherish your incertitude. Shoulder it with a measure of pride that you, unlike so many, have chosen bravely to bear that uneasy burden. And accept as your reward a sense of wonder. Einstein was right. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe is as good as dead.” He smiled. “And I should know.”
I noticed the clock behind him again, and realized that I was seeing it more clearly. The apparition of Hitchens was fading. He was going away. I felt a sudden pang of grief, but tried to affect a light tone. “Leaving so soon?”
His smile turned wistful. “How very mortal of you. All of this,” he glanced around my study, but it was clear he was gazing beyond its walls, “we do nothing to earn our initial spot here. It’s all a gift. And then we ungraciously moan that we cannot have more.”
“Any last words? For ... us?” I didn’t want to say your fans. It would have sounded too pedestrian. We’re something more than that.
He was almost gone now. “Keep the opposition ever on the back foot. But have a hand out too for when they fall.”
“All right.”
“And have some goddamn fun. Otherwise, what’s the point?”
I could only just make out the edges of a man-like shape, and then they were gone too. I quickly stepped over to the space where Hitchens appeared to have been standing a moment before. Did the air feel a few degrees cooler here? Maybe. Did I want it to? Yes, doubtless I did.
When it comes to beliefs, desire isn’t data.
I ran the line over a few times in my head, determined to remember it verbatim. It felt like a parting gift from an old friend.
I started to leave the study, stopped, slipped a book off the shelf, and carried it to my bedroom with the dregs of the whiskey still in my other hand.
Returning to bed, I clicked on my nightstand lamp. I opened God is Not Great to the afterword, page two eighty-seven, and read.
May 1, New York City: An evening at the Union League Club
I am interviewed by the publisher Peter Collier. He’s just closed the meeting when a man in clerical collar puts up his hand. In a magnanimous mood, I say, Fair enough—let’s extend the event for a man of the cloth. This turns out to be Father George Rutler of the Church of Our Saviour, who announces that he’s on the committee of the club and will make sure I am never invited there again. There’s some shock at this inhospitable attitude, but I think: Gosh. Holy Mother Church used to threaten people with eternal damnation. Now it’s exclusion from the Union League Club. What a comedown. In a brisk exchange near the elevator, the good Father assures me that I shall die a Catholic.
As usual, they were wrong.
_________________________
Lee Burvine is the author of the controversial new novel The Kafir Project (foreword by Lawrence M. Krauss) now available on Amazon. He would love for you to share this story with your friends.
And lift a glass to Hitch while you’re at it. Cheers.
Larry Alex Taunton apparently prides himself on being a man who never let decency or good taste interfere with the opportunity to stretch the truth for money and attention. Taunton, who couldn't win a debate against Hitchens while the erudite champion of anti-theism was alive, fancies his chances a little better now that his famed opponent is dead. [Spoiler alert, Larry still loses].
To wit: he's written a book entitled The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, which purports to reveal that Hitchens reconsidered his own atheism near the end of his fight with esophageal cancer. It further promises to disclose how the staunch unbeliever secretly yearned to embrace Christianity, but sadly was foiled by his own long-standing policy of rejecting manifestly false, historically baseless rubbish.
Upon hearing all this, I felt what I suppose many devoted Hitch fans did. Revulsion like you might experience watching, say, a video of Ted Cruz naked and aroused in a shower, passionately tongue-kissing his own elderly mother. In other words, someone there is clearly enjoying himself immensely, and just as clearly he really shouldn’t oughta be.
What to do, though? The principal conversations Taunton cites as evidence are alleged to have occurred on two long-distance car rides. Only he and Hitchens were present and only they could accurately report on the exchange. Unfortunately one of these two men currently lacks functioning brain cells and the other one is dead.
The solution came to me late the other night. And I mean it truly came to me.
I lay awake in bed, troubled at that time by a different ethical dilemma. I was weighing whether in toto it would be better to have Donald Trump heading the executive branch of the US government, or to gut myself with broken glass and devour my own full, hot bowels. It felt like a toss-up and I just couldn’t decide.
Sometime past two-thirty, as I was about to get up and look for a bottle to shatter (just in case), I heard a familiar voice.
“Sorry to interrupt your reverie, but you wouldn't happen to have a decent whiskey handy, would you? Damned hard to come by where I've been lately.”
I looked to the foot of my bed, already as certain of what I would see there as I was incredulous. That mellifluous RP accent, the spark of dark humor, the very nature of the request itself. And as I watched, the ghost of Christopher Hitchens materialized in my bedroom, raising an empty lowball glass in a hand nearly as transparent.
He twiddled his glass and offered a wry smile. “Spiritu a spiritum?”
“Sounds appropriate.” I don’t have much Latin, but in context this was pretty easy to make out. Spirits for a spirit. Whatever else he’d lost in death, Hitchens had kept his wits.
I arose from bed, donned my robe, and led the late literary pugilist into my study. There I cracked opened a lovely, twelve year old single malt I'd been saving for the death of George W. Bush. (This was easily as special an occasion.) I poured out one finger for each of us. Hitchens arched a spectral brow. I poured him two. He nodded his approval, and I handed him back his glass.
He looked surprisingly hale and hearty for a dead man. His hair, once depilated by chemo-therapy, was again full and delightfully unkempt. He wore a slightly rumpled suit of a light tan. His skin, though diaphanous, still held a better color than it had in his final days. We stood facing each other in front of the desk at which I am seated now, writing this account.
The great polemicist’s poltergeist lifted his glass in a silent toast and took a nip. I watched in fascination, half-expecting the expensive, golden liquid to dribble through his chin to the floor. It did not. All of which only added to my understandable curiosity.
“You mentioned ‘where I’ve been lately,’” I said.
“I did indeed.” He met my gaze with those wonderfully large and intelligent eyes that always seemed to suggest lugubrious depths, despite their sparkle.
“I’ve, uh, always wanted to know a bit more about ... that.” Stumbling a little on the immensity of what I was really asking.
“I’m afraid I can’t help you there.” He paused, then added, “I mean quite literally, I cannot.”
“Really?”
I puzzled over his precise choice of language. Was he saying that mere words would be inadequate to the task, or was there some sort of rule book the departed were privy to and perhaps bound by? I took a sip of whiskey myself and waited, letting the silence hang there between us in the hopes it might induce some minor enlargement on this cryptic statement.
Hitchens waited too.
After a few moments it occurred to me he had something of an edge there, inasmuch as he could stand here for all eternity if he liked, and I had at most about half a mortal lifespan remaining to spend.
“All right,” I said at last, “but I still have to ask...”
“The God question, yes. I should think the interview would be considered woefully incomplete without it.”
“I’m not interviewing you,” I lied. Somewhere in the back of my mind a number like five hundred thousand views was tickling my awareness.
Hitchens scoffed. “Well, why on earth wouldn't you be? Good Christ, man, of all of the interviews I've ever given, this surely rates among the most interesting. I'd say a half million views was selling us fairly short.”
A chill ran down my spine to my feet, bare and blue in the moonlight seeping in through my study window. He can hear my thoughts. Holy shit. So he's hearing this thought too. And this one. I can't, I have to ... seven times seven is forty-nine, eight times seven is fifty-six, nine times seven is, um ...
“I don't know how long you can keep that up, old boy, but it's not necessary. You want me to stay out of your head, I give you a gentlemen's word I will stay out. For the remainder of this thing that is not an interview.” He winked.
I took a deep breath and made a concerted effort to pull myself together. “Good enough for me, Mr. Hitchens.”
“Christopher is fine.”
I felt my eyes misting up. I blinked and swallowed hard. The swirl of emotions was making me a bit dizzy. Or was it the whiskey? Didn't matter. It actually felt pretty good.
“So, Christopher, is there a God or not? And did you turn to Him, like Taunton is saying? Or, I don’t know, did you want to? I guess that’s more what he’s suggesting.”
“Yes.”
“What?!”
“Yes, that’s what he is suggesting. He’s not saying I converted on my death bed. He doesn’t have the bollocks for that apparently. At any rate my wife was with me in those days and hours and she can refute that. He is saying that I reconsidered my atheistic convictions.”
“And...?” I braced myself for the answer.
“And what do you think? I’m not dodging the question — I truly want your take on all of all this, and I’ve already promised to get it the old-fashioned way.”
I felt the anger as heat in my face and neck. “It’s bullshit. I mean, you predicted this. They did the same thing with Voltaire, and Hume, and Ingersoll, and ... well they always do this.”
“True enough.”
“And you said on video that if you ever spewed any such thing, you know, ‘I found Jesus,’ or whatever, that it would be the product of, of madness and medication.”
“I didn’t put it quite that way, but I like the alliteration. Nice little turn of phrase.”
“Thanks.” I think I blushed.
Hitchens fixed me with a hard stare. “So then, you actually know Taunton has been lying.”
“I ... yes.” I felt a thrill of fear for the first time that night, despite that for several minutes I’d already been talking with a phantom. Because I saw now what was at stake here. And it was more than my unabashed love and admiration for this man. “Maybe ‘know’ isn’t the right ... it’s all just too out of character.”
“Because the dying never act out of character. And besides, you and I were always so very close in life.”
The dizziness sank from my head to my stomach and I began to feel a bit sick. “I don’t think I want to play this game.”
“No, no, no, there’s nothing for it but to push on now.”
I looked straight ahead, noticing for the first time that I could make out the second hand of my study’s wall clock ticking behind him. I didn’t miss the irony. I could peer through his head, but not into it. “All right. So is it true? Taunton doesn’t say you converted, not exactly. He says you wanted to, but you balked at the cost. Which is worse, really.”
“Yes. Because that would mean I cynically kept to my original position out of sheer vanity. To protect my precious persona.”
“Yes.” I paused.“So...”
Hitchens, or this phantasm of him or this dream of him or this undigested bit of beef, took another sip of whiskey.
When he looked at me again, the sadness in his eyes was tangible not tacit. “And what if I flat out told you it wasn’t true? What if I said Taunton conveniently mistook my rather extraordinary ability to enjoy true friendship with people who hold wildly different views as evidence that I longed to join them in those beliefs? What if I said that his and my reading aloud from the gospel of John at length — and we did, mind you — amounted to no more than the usual discussion and debate prep. In this case for the very contests to which we were then en route. What if I told you all of that? Would you then know the truth?”
I took a deep breath. “No. I still wouldn’t know.”
He gave a single nod. “The one and only correct answer.”
“I would believe you, though.”
He swirled his whiskey glass, watching it intently. “And what if some recordings emerged which supported everything Taunton is suggesting? That I saw the light and couldn’t face its glare. Or pure narcissism got in the way. What say you then?”
“Then I’d be mortified.”
He looked up with a bemused expression. “No more than I.”
“I might wonder if they were fakes. No, I would wonder. And I’d want them to be fakes. I’m afraid I’d want that a lot.”
“Fair enough.” He spread his arms wide in an expansive gesture. “We all want certain things to be true, if we’re honest. But when it comes to beliefs, desire isn’t data. Never conflate the two, because that way madness lies.”
“This is what you meant before, isn’t it? When I said how I wanted to know about ... where you’ve been. And you said you couldn’t help.”
“Couldn’t help you to know. About any of it, including the God question. The evidence alone can accomplish that. No mere account can pull it off, regardless of how respected the individual who conveys it or how ancient and revered the book that contains it. Eventually you’ll see for yourself.”
I jumped on that. “I will?”
“Or you won’t. You’re not going to catch me out that easily. Some questions can’t be answered. Life fairly seethes with uncertainty, my friend.”
“Yeah. I hate that.”
“Well, don’t.” He narrowed his eyes and sharpened his voice. “I’m as deadly serious right now as only the dead can be. There’s nothing the matter with uncertainty. That’s their disease not ours. They’re the ones so desperate for answers they take the collected press releases of a Bronze Age tribe as the revealed Truth.” He set his glass down on my desk blotter and continued in an almost fatherly tone. “Uncertainty is a glorious thing, Lee, and I’ll tell you why. Because where there is certainty there is no more possibility. Those antipodes cannot exist in the same mind at the same time. So cherish your incertitude. Shoulder it with a measure of pride that you, unlike so many, have chosen bravely to bear that uneasy burden. And accept as your reward a sense of wonder. Einstein was right. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe is as good as dead.” He smiled. “And I should know.”
I noticed the clock behind him again, and realized that I was seeing it more clearly. The apparition of Hitchens was fading. He was going away. I felt a sudden pang of grief, but tried to affect a light tone. “Leaving so soon?”
His smile turned wistful. “How very mortal of you. All of this,” he glanced around my study, but it was clear he was gazing beyond its walls, “we do nothing to earn our initial spot here. It’s all a gift. And then we ungraciously moan that we cannot have more.”
“Any last words? For ... us?” I didn’t want to say your fans. It would have sounded too pedestrian. We’re something more than that.
He was almost gone now. “Keep the opposition ever on the back foot. But have a hand out too for when they fall.”
“All right.”
“And have some goddamn fun. Otherwise, what’s the point?”
I could only just make out the edges of a man-like shape, and then they were gone too. I quickly stepped over to the space where Hitchens appeared to have been standing a moment before. Did the air feel a few degrees cooler here? Maybe. Did I want it to? Yes, doubtless I did.
When it comes to beliefs, desire isn’t data.
I ran the line over a few times in my head, determined to remember it verbatim. It felt like a parting gift from an old friend.
I started to leave the study, stopped, slipped a book off the shelf, and carried it to my bedroom with the dregs of the whiskey still in my other hand.
Returning to bed, I clicked on my nightstand lamp. I opened God is Not Great to the afterword, page two eighty-seven, and read.
May 1, New York City: An evening at the Union League Club
I am interviewed by the publisher Peter Collier. He’s just closed the meeting when a man in clerical collar puts up his hand. In a magnanimous mood, I say, Fair enough—let’s extend the event for a man of the cloth. This turns out to be Father George Rutler of the Church of Our Saviour, who announces that he’s on the committee of the club and will make sure I am never invited there again. There’s some shock at this inhospitable attitude, but I think: Gosh. Holy Mother Church used to threaten people with eternal damnation. Now it’s exclusion from the Union League Club. What a comedown. In a brisk exchange near the elevator, the good Father assures me that I shall die a Catholic.
As usual, they were wrong.
_________________________
Lee Burvine is the author of the controversial new novel The Kafir Project (foreword by Lawrence M. Krauss) now available on Amazon. He would love for you to share this story with your friends.
And lift a glass to Hitch while you’re at it. Cheers.
March 13, 2016
I won't say much here because I am writing a review of this book for Books & Culture. But I can say that in the review I hope to use up my store of superlatives. This book is marvelous.
May 5, 2016
I picked up this book because John Wilson from Books & Culture magazine recommended it and it sounded good.
It's not good. I couldn't even finish it. Taunton does a lot of moralizing and assigning meanings to Hitchens' life & actions that may or may not actually fit the facts. I only got about a tenth of the way through before I had to give it up because Taunton was sooo bad. Very disappointing.
Longer version: I should probably add specifics to this review. There were several things early in the book that turned me off & made me doubt the reliability of Taunton's perspective on Hitchens' life. One was the author's justification for sharing intimate details of his friendship with Hitchens, which boiled down to "Well, Hitch shared intimate details of our friendship publicly without asking me for permission, so I can do the same to him." Um, no. That's not how it works. Just because one friend has no filter doesn't mean the other friend should automatically also share everything.
Another segment of the book that made me question the author's perspective was a semi-offhanded comment about the worthlessness of autobiographies. Taunton says that the last good autobiography was Augustine's CONFESSIONS. Whoa, really??? The CONFESSIONS is largely considered to be the very first autobiography ever written. And Taunton thinks there have been ZERO worthwhile autobiographies written since? Taunton uses this statement as a defense for the way he dismisses large portions of Hitchens' own words about himself and his experience. The irony, though, is Taunton appears to be oblivious to the fact that this very book, THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, contains large stretches of Taunton's autobiography! According Taunton's own statement, we should dismiss this book as fairly worthless because it is an autobiography that isn't CONFESSIONS. Taunton apparently doesn't realize, however, that in trying to undermine Hitchens' autobiographical writings, he's just undermined his own work as well.
(I'm not claiming that Hitchens' autobiographical writings are wonders of clear, objective self-revelation. I haven't read them. I have no clue. But surely they deserve a more careful treatment than "All autobiographers except Augustine suck!")
I also really did *not* appreciate Taunton's extensive comparison of Hitchens' experience in boarding school with that of C. S. Lewis. A paragraph or so noting the similarities of their experiences would have been fine. But Taunton expands the comparison to a rather ludicrous extent. Hitchens was born in '49, literally *decades* after Lewis had left boarding school. There are plenty of other men who experienced British boarding schools who have written about their experiences. It's bad historical practice to use only Lewis' experience as a foil to Hitchens' when so many other perspectives and primary sources exist, much closer to the time Hitchens was actually in school. The use of Lewis' experience, however, allows Taunton to extensively moralize about how Hitchens didn't end up finding God and Lewis did, so Hitchens obviously reacted wrongly to his boarding school experience while Lewis reacted correctly. Or something. (Never mind that Lewis didn't find God at boarding school or for years afterwards. It's pretty obvious that Taunton approves of Lewis's behavior at boarding school largely because Lewis refused to participate in "buggering" [Taunton's word choice] and found it disgusting. ((Taunton has some fairly homophobic things to say about Hitchens' funeral, as well.)))
All in all, the first few chapters of this book made it pretty clear that Taunton is more interested in riding his ideological hobby horse than in presenting a fair view of Hitchens' life. Honestly, I think I was hoping this book would be a little bit "Speaker for the Dead," as in Orson Scott Card's Ender books. Not glossing over Hitchens' faults, but entering empathically into Hitchens' lived experience and valuing his life. Maybe Taunton's writing got better as the book progressed? I don't know. But the beginning gave me little hope for the rest, and for my own peace of mind I dropped the book.
It's not good. I couldn't even finish it. Taunton does a lot of moralizing and assigning meanings to Hitchens' life & actions that may or may not actually fit the facts. I only got about a tenth of the way through before I had to give it up because Taunton was sooo bad. Very disappointing.
Longer version: I should probably add specifics to this review. There were several things early in the book that turned me off & made me doubt the reliability of Taunton's perspective on Hitchens' life. One was the author's justification for sharing intimate details of his friendship with Hitchens, which boiled down to "Well, Hitch shared intimate details of our friendship publicly without asking me for permission, so I can do the same to him." Um, no. That's not how it works. Just because one friend has no filter doesn't mean the other friend should automatically also share everything.
Another segment of the book that made me question the author's perspective was a semi-offhanded comment about the worthlessness of autobiographies. Taunton says that the last good autobiography was Augustine's CONFESSIONS. Whoa, really??? The CONFESSIONS is largely considered to be the very first autobiography ever written. And Taunton thinks there have been ZERO worthwhile autobiographies written since? Taunton uses this statement as a defense for the way he dismisses large portions of Hitchens' own words about himself and his experience. The irony, though, is Taunton appears to be oblivious to the fact that this very book, THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, contains large stretches of Taunton's autobiography! According Taunton's own statement, we should dismiss this book as fairly worthless because it is an autobiography that isn't CONFESSIONS. Taunton apparently doesn't realize, however, that in trying to undermine Hitchens' autobiographical writings, he's just undermined his own work as well.
(I'm not claiming that Hitchens' autobiographical writings are wonders of clear, objective self-revelation. I haven't read them. I have no clue. But surely they deserve a more careful treatment than "All autobiographers except Augustine suck!")
I also really did *not* appreciate Taunton's extensive comparison of Hitchens' experience in boarding school with that of C. S. Lewis. A paragraph or so noting the similarities of their experiences would have been fine. But Taunton expands the comparison to a rather ludicrous extent. Hitchens was born in '49, literally *decades* after Lewis had left boarding school. There are plenty of other men who experienced British boarding schools who have written about their experiences. It's bad historical practice to use only Lewis' experience as a foil to Hitchens' when so many other perspectives and primary sources exist, much closer to the time Hitchens was actually in school. The use of Lewis' experience, however, allows Taunton to extensively moralize about how Hitchens didn't end up finding God and Lewis did, so Hitchens obviously reacted wrongly to his boarding school experience while Lewis reacted correctly. Or something. (Never mind that Lewis didn't find God at boarding school or for years afterwards. It's pretty obvious that Taunton approves of Lewis's behavior at boarding school largely because Lewis refused to participate in "buggering" [Taunton's word choice] and found it disgusting. ((Taunton has some fairly homophobic things to say about Hitchens' funeral, as well.)))
All in all, the first few chapters of this book made it pretty clear that Taunton is more interested in riding his ideological hobby horse than in presenting a fair view of Hitchens' life. Honestly, I think I was hoping this book would be a little bit "Speaker for the Dead," as in Orson Scott Card's Ender books. Not glossing over Hitchens' faults, but entering empathically into Hitchens' lived experience and valuing his life. Maybe Taunton's writing got better as the book progressed? I don't know. But the beginning gave me little hope for the rest, and for my own peace of mind I dropped the book.
April 18, 2016
This book is a self-serving hit job on a dead man who can no longer defend himself.
Upon hearing that Hitchens was dying, this self-proclaimed "godly" man prayed not for his recovery but that god would do whatever was necessary to convert him even if that included breaking him, just as he had prayed for his own father. The sentiment that the author states most closely matches his own upon hearing of the death was that 'maybe, just maybe, some of the gospels Hitchens had so often heard had rubbed off enough to change him as he gasped his last breath'. Inhumane in every way (see page 177 for more horrifyingly tone-deaf condolences) but, especially, coming from someone who claimed to be his friend.
There is nothing beyond the author's assumptions and conjecture that a certain look or silence on Hitchens' part obviously meant that he was considering converting. The author proclaims that Hitchens only maintained his claims of atheism in the end so as to not embarrass himself by changing his mind publicly. Taunton even goes so far as to assume that, had Hitchens lived, he would have fully converted to Christianity (but only the author's particular brand of Christian belief, of course.) Hitchens, himself, maintained his disbelief until the day he died.
This book is nothing more than a way for Taunton to proselytize using his "friend's" dead body to do it. Disgusting.
Upon hearing that Hitchens was dying, this self-proclaimed "godly" man prayed not for his recovery but that god would do whatever was necessary to convert him even if that included breaking him, just as he had prayed for his own father. The sentiment that the author states most closely matches his own upon hearing of the death was that 'maybe, just maybe, some of the gospels Hitchens had so often heard had rubbed off enough to change him as he gasped his last breath'. Inhumane in every way (see page 177 for more horrifyingly tone-deaf condolences) but, especially, coming from someone who claimed to be his friend.
There is nothing beyond the author's assumptions and conjecture that a certain look or silence on Hitchens' part obviously meant that he was considering converting. The author proclaims that Hitchens only maintained his claims of atheism in the end so as to not embarrass himself by changing his mind publicly. Taunton even goes so far as to assume that, had Hitchens lived, he would have fully converted to Christianity (but only the author's particular brand of Christian belief, of course.) Hitchens, himself, maintained his disbelief until the day he died.
This book is nothing more than a way for Taunton to proselytize using his "friend's" dead body to do it. Disgusting.
October 3, 2016
A vile betrayal of a personal friendship, and something about which the author should be deeply ashamed. My fuller review:
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/boo...
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/boo...
March 29, 2016
Great book. I absolutely loved it. I first saw Hitchens in a YouTube debate vs. Dinesh D’Souza. I remember lying awake in bed that night dealing in my head with all the objections Christopher had raised. His rhetoric was very powerful. I was 21 then. I followed him from that point on until cancer took his life. So this book was an insightful look into a life I knew only from a distance.
The book is basically a biography. It covers Christopher’s childhood through his death. It gives special attention to Larry’s interaction with Christopher especially toward the end of his life, because that is where the very unique relationship of the author with Hitchens really gets interesting. Larry follows Christopher’s thought and his evolution (if you will). Larry does this by using Christopher own words in interviews and in his own interactions with him. I found this fascinating and have seen evolution of thought in many people including myself. So it was intriguing to see how Christopher also changed his tune on some things, such as his view of war and western civilization.
The book had a lot of stories and anecdotes about Christopher I had never heard before, which made it very interesting. After reading this book I found myself more and more drawn to Christopher as a person. Despite Christopher’s opposition to my view of the world, Larry highlights some qualities that I was impressed with. For example, Christopher’s loyalty to friends above and beyond his loyalty to his ideology. Larry also highlights some characteristics which weren’t so commendable, but which I have seen many times in myself or in others. Such as his propensity to read stuff and refer to it, though he didn’t have a full understanding of what the point was that the author was raising. I had noticed this in Hitchens debates. Recognizing those things, made Larry’s portrayal believable.
I appreciated how the book was respectful of Hitchens and didn’t put words in his mouth. I recommend this book to everyone. Read it. I think there is a lot to in the book that can help teach us all how to have a deep friendship with someone and still disagree on major issues. I think atheists and Christians will agree it is at least a good story and well written.
The book is basically a biography. It covers Christopher’s childhood through his death. It gives special attention to Larry’s interaction with Christopher especially toward the end of his life, because that is where the very unique relationship of the author with Hitchens really gets interesting. Larry follows Christopher’s thought and his evolution (if you will). Larry does this by using Christopher own words in interviews and in his own interactions with him. I found this fascinating and have seen evolution of thought in many people including myself. So it was intriguing to see how Christopher also changed his tune on some things, such as his view of war and western civilization.
The book had a lot of stories and anecdotes about Christopher I had never heard before, which made it very interesting. After reading this book I found myself more and more drawn to Christopher as a person. Despite Christopher’s opposition to my view of the world, Larry highlights some qualities that I was impressed with. For example, Christopher’s loyalty to friends above and beyond his loyalty to his ideology. Larry also highlights some characteristics which weren’t so commendable, but which I have seen many times in myself or in others. Such as his propensity to read stuff and refer to it, though he didn’t have a full understanding of what the point was that the author was raising. I had noticed this in Hitchens debates. Recognizing those things, made Larry’s portrayal believable.
I appreciated how the book was respectful of Hitchens and didn’t put words in his mouth. I recommend this book to everyone. Read it. I think there is a lot to in the book that can help teach us all how to have a deep friendship with someone and still disagree on major issues. I think atheists and Christians will agree it is at least a good story and well written.
May 17, 2016
Lies, twisted truths, rewritten history, wishful thinking, and then more lies...
Hitches specifically warned the public not to believe any tales of a deathbed conversion in a CNN interview before his death.
Hitches specifically warned the public not to believe any tales of a deathbed conversion in a CNN interview before his death.
May 16, 2016
This book is misread by two types of readers.
First it is misread by Christian readers who want to add another trophy to their mantle. Let’s get this out of the way first thing, Mr. Taunton does NOT make the claim that Christopher Hitchens made a deathbed conversion to Christianly or even to Theism. Taunton believes that Hitchens died as he lived – on his own terms and consistent with his anti-theist position.
The second type of reader who misreads this book is the atheist who is looking to rail against an author under the assumption that Taunton is twisting Hitchens story in a way that would shove the Christian version of Theism down the reader’s throat. As one reviewer has erroneously suggested, it is made up from Taunton’s firsthand, unsubstantiated accounts (despite hundreds and hundreds of notations and quotes). Anyone who states that in a review, you can trust with some great certainty that they have not read this book.
Both readers have totally missed the point of the book. The point of the book is that two people, who had very different lifestyles and who had two very different world views, could become close friends. Yes, Taunton is a Christian. Yes, he writes from the perspective of a Christian. In the chapter detailing the drive he and Hitchens took through the Shenandoah Valley (really the only time he relies on recollection and not quoted notations – this 1 day period of Hitchens life) Taunton does journal the conversations they had during their “mutual textual criticism of the Gospel of St. John” which necessarily leads to a presentation of the Gospel. But is done in a way that is not coercive to the reader, but lets the reader take a back seat in the car during that conversation.
Throughout the book, Taunton is very respectful of Christopher Hitchens. He paints a picture of a man who lived through some very hard times, had a pointed view of life, and had a very dramatic change post September 11, 2001 (politically, not spiritually – in fact he doubled down on his atheism after 9/11). What comes from the book is how important it is that those who are on different sides of fences, be it political, moral, or spiritual, to treat one another with respect and to find commonality and friendship.
The book is mainly written to Christians as a challenge to rethink their relationships with people on the other side of these issues. It is written as an indictment of those Christians who have treated Christianity as an “us vs them” proposition. It is written to help remind us that behind political, moral, and spiritual debates are people who have emotions, hurts, family relationships, and joys.
Christopher Hitchens put his faith in atheism. Taunton, like myself, puts his faith in Christ. But what is most important is that the two became friends. That give me the courage to put down my coat of arms, and just enjoy people for who they are outside of the raging debate.
First it is misread by Christian readers who want to add another trophy to their mantle. Let’s get this out of the way first thing, Mr. Taunton does NOT make the claim that Christopher Hitchens made a deathbed conversion to Christianly or even to Theism. Taunton believes that Hitchens died as he lived – on his own terms and consistent with his anti-theist position.
The second type of reader who misreads this book is the atheist who is looking to rail against an author under the assumption that Taunton is twisting Hitchens story in a way that would shove the Christian version of Theism down the reader’s throat. As one reviewer has erroneously suggested, it is made up from Taunton’s firsthand, unsubstantiated accounts (despite hundreds and hundreds of notations and quotes). Anyone who states that in a review, you can trust with some great certainty that they have not read this book.
Both readers have totally missed the point of the book. The point of the book is that two people, who had very different lifestyles and who had two very different world views, could become close friends. Yes, Taunton is a Christian. Yes, he writes from the perspective of a Christian. In the chapter detailing the drive he and Hitchens took through the Shenandoah Valley (really the only time he relies on recollection and not quoted notations – this 1 day period of Hitchens life) Taunton does journal the conversations they had during their “mutual textual criticism of the Gospel of St. John” which necessarily leads to a presentation of the Gospel. But is done in a way that is not coercive to the reader, but lets the reader take a back seat in the car during that conversation.
Throughout the book, Taunton is very respectful of Christopher Hitchens. He paints a picture of a man who lived through some very hard times, had a pointed view of life, and had a very dramatic change post September 11, 2001 (politically, not spiritually – in fact he doubled down on his atheism after 9/11). What comes from the book is how important it is that those who are on different sides of fences, be it political, moral, or spiritual, to treat one another with respect and to find commonality and friendship.
The book is mainly written to Christians as a challenge to rethink their relationships with people on the other side of these issues. It is written as an indictment of those Christians who have treated Christianity as an “us vs them” proposition. It is written to help remind us that behind political, moral, and spiritual debates are people who have emotions, hurts, family relationships, and joys.
Christopher Hitchens put his faith in atheism. Taunton, like myself, puts his faith in Christ. But what is most important is that the two became friends. That give me the courage to put down my coat of arms, and just enjoy people for who they are outside of the raging debate.
December 27, 2016
"But the others looked in the face of Aslan and loved him, though some of them were very frightened at the same time. And all these came in at the Door, in on Aslan's right. There were some queer specimens among them. Eustace even recognized one of those very Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Horses."
We won't know till we, too, are on the other side of the Door whether Christopher Hitchens is one of Christ's queer specimens. This book made me long all the more for it to be so, and brightened a little my glimmer of hope that it might be so (though the author in no way directly promotes that hope -- he clearly believes Hitchens died unbelieving). I wept through the last 30-45 minutes or so, and am still wiping my eyes. My heart aches for this man I never met who died (publicly, at least) defying God, and it aches for many I know who have died or will die in similar defiance or, perhaps worse, in indifference. I'm no evangelist, so I mostly just pray that God will send them someone who is. I'm a shabby representative of Jesus, so I pray He'll send them a better one. And I know no one can look in the face of Christ and love Him unless He opens their eyes, so I pray He does so, because He is lovely to behold.
Shortly after I finished writing the above, I walked three houses up the street to where one of my dearest friends is losing a battle with stomach cancer. A couple hundred fellow church members had already gathered around the house to sing a few hymns. She can no longer attend worship, so we brought the worship to her. She knows Jesus is lovely, and she reflects His loveliness in the joy and hope and faith she has radiated as she walks through the valley of the shadow. Since the pump was already primed, I had trouble holding back the tears. But they were tears of a different sort--I ache knowing I will miss her; I ache knowing her family will miss her; but I do not ache with fear for her soul or anxiety for what her eternity holds.
To die in Christ and to die well is a great gift to those you leave behind. Christopher Hitchens was too proud and selfish to give that gift. I hope I won't be. I hope you won't be, either.
-------------
Narrator wasn't my favorite.
We won't know till we, too, are on the other side of the Door whether Christopher Hitchens is one of Christ's queer specimens. This book made me long all the more for it to be so, and brightened a little my glimmer of hope that it might be so (though the author in no way directly promotes that hope -- he clearly believes Hitchens died unbelieving). I wept through the last 30-45 minutes or so, and am still wiping my eyes. My heart aches for this man I never met who died (publicly, at least) defying God, and it aches for many I know who have died or will die in similar defiance or, perhaps worse, in indifference. I'm no evangelist, so I mostly just pray that God will send them someone who is. I'm a shabby representative of Jesus, so I pray He'll send them a better one. And I know no one can look in the face of Christ and love Him unless He opens their eyes, so I pray He does so, because He is lovely to behold.
Shortly after I finished writing the above, I walked three houses up the street to where one of my dearest friends is losing a battle with stomach cancer. A couple hundred fellow church members had already gathered around the house to sing a few hymns. She can no longer attend worship, so we brought the worship to her. She knows Jesus is lovely, and she reflects His loveliness in the joy and hope and faith she has radiated as she walks through the valley of the shadow. Since the pump was already primed, I had trouble holding back the tears. But they were tears of a different sort--I ache knowing I will miss her; I ache knowing her family will miss her; but I do not ache with fear for her soul or anxiety for what her eternity holds.
To die in Christ and to die well is a great gift to those you leave behind. Christopher Hitchens was too proud and selfish to give that gift. I hope I won't be. I hope you won't be, either.
-------------
Narrator wasn't my favorite.
April 20, 2016
This was really excellent. It was level-headed, insightful, interesting. There's no way I would have read a Thomas Nelson book on this topic by an author I didn't know if Doug Wilson in Books & Culture and someone at the Gospel Coalition (bit.ly/22MCfZK) hadn't praised it so highly. I would have assumed that it was some dewy-eyed evangelical wish-fulfillment book in which some deathbed muttering reported third-hand becomes, in the hands of the kind of person who reports decision figures for revivalistic crusades, a conversion story—despite Hitch's famous "If I convert on my deathbed it's the cancer" statement.
Taunton doesn't do this. He's honest. I quickly came to trust him. And like him. He managed to stay humble while telling a story in which, truth be told, he comes off rather well. That's because he doesn't think of himself as equal to Hitchens in debate skills or intellect. He clearly admires Hitchens. What's more, he clearly loved Hitchens. And that comes through. I already felt, after Wilson's Collision DVD with Hitchens, an affinity toward this particular atheist that I don't feel for his compatriots Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris; it was an affinity I couldn't explain. Now I can. A really special book.
Taunton doesn't do this. He's honest. I quickly came to trust him. And like him. He managed to stay humble while telling a story in which, truth be told, he comes off rather well. That's because he doesn't think of himself as equal to Hitchens in debate skills or intellect. He clearly admires Hitchens. What's more, he clearly loved Hitchens. And that comes through. I already felt, after Wilson's Collision DVD with Hitchens, an affinity toward this particular atheist that I don't feel for his compatriots Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris; it was an affinity I couldn't explain. Now I can. A really special book.
May 2, 2016
Although very well written, Larry Taunton has written this book as a kick to Hitchens while he is down. Taunton could not have taken on Hitchens in life so he creates these half truths and clear lies to "defeat" him.
Taunton can no longer say he is a friend of Hitchens
Taunton can no longer say he is a friend of Hitchens
May 20, 2017
I wish I could give this book more stars to improve the chances that people will read my review. But even two stars, according to GoodReads, signifies “It Was Okay” and I can’t in good conscience say that. This book is not okay. The writing is competent enough, Larry Taunton can construct a grammatically correct sentence, but the content of those sentences is—not okay.
The first two thirds of the book is basically Hitchens’ biography according to Taunton, beginning with his school days and analyzing his childhood and family. None of this is new information, nearly all of it is culled directly from Hitchens’ own writings (mainly his autobiography, Hitch-22) and annotated as such. But the analysis is all Taunton’s and doesn’t really have any supporting evidence. If you didn’t know better you might think that they grew up together and that Taunton has firsthand knowledge for his claims. Only much later does he admit that he and Hitchens became friends in 2008, and by then the reader has already absorbed Taunton’s agenda-driven interpretation of Hitchens’ entire life up to then as fact. Even if I knew nothing at all of Hitchens, his life, and his work, I would be appalled to see anyone torn apart so brutally, his every word questioned, every act credited with the worst possible motive, by someone who insists so defensively that they really were friends.
The truth, Taunton tell us, is that his good friend Christopher Hitchens was a fraud. A sham. A man who claimed atheism in a moment of rebellion against the god he knew perfectly well to exist and then made such a good living at it that he had to continue the lie at all costs. Hitchens, according to Taunton, was merely an actor naturally gifted in oratory, which he practiced through debate in school, and combined the shallow knowledge gained by his “wide but not deep reading” with his natural English accent to make tens of thousands of equally ignorant fans think that he knew much more than he did.
Also, lest you think for a moment that Hitchens was a decent person, Taunton informs us that he only cared about important people and celebrities (like Larry Taunton?), he somehow orchestrated his memorial so that none of the lower class could attend, and his character is perfectly summed up by—some random unnamed guy at the memorial who said he was there to see celebrities and never liked Hitch much. If his point was that Hitchens had shit friends, Taunton didn’t need another example. The book itself is sufficient.
The main argument, which Taunton makes at every opportunity (real or imagined) is that Hitchens lacked the courage of his stated convictions in nearly every area of his life. In fact, he apparently lacked courage, period. The word “cowardly” is thrown around more often than one would expect in a book by a close friend, as is the word “effeminate”. There doesn’t seem to be a real reason for it, it’s just very important to Taunton that we know Hitchens was an “effeminate” (no explanation given) child, and he will remind us as often as necessary to insure we don’t forget. Just as it’s important that we know Hitchens is inferior in every way to CS Lewis, another English boarding school survivor whom Taunton didn’t know as a student.
I had been warned that the book contained a lot of kicking a man when he’s dead, but what I didn’t expect was how painful those petty, cowardly, self-congratulatory little blows would be to read. The thought of this being the work of a man who said over and over again that they were “good friends”, “close friends”, “shared a deep friendship” broke my heart two or three times per page. I don’t know what my friends will say about me after I’m dead, but if they can’t do better than this, I hope they at least don’t publish it.
Which isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of compliments in the book. In fact, they comprise much of the final third. They are legion, and lavish, and they are all bestowed upon Taunton by Hitchens. It’s kind of amazing that anyone other than Donald Trump would write a book so full of self-praise, even if he is careful to put it in another’s mouth. It’s only in this portion to we learn how brief their acquaintance really was, after Taunton has finished filtering and analyzing Hitchens’ entire life to date through his own fundamentalist evangelical lens. Presumably we’re supposed to assume that they discussed all of Hitchens’ childhood and his complex thoughts on 9/11 during their two car trips. But they used one of those trips to read and discuss the Gospel of John, and that wouldn’t have left a lot of time for conversational digression.
Taunton does admit from time to time that he doesn’t know for sure that what he’s saying is true, that he supposes, he felt, or he judged by Hitchens’ expression. But these admissions are immediately followed by more guesses and suppositions which he again states as fact.
There are a couple of specific examples I want to mention, for what it’s worth. The first comes from Hitchens’ childhood, something Taunton only knows from the autobiography Hitch-22, where Hitchens’ describes being exposed to the typical English boarding school “beating, bullying, and buggery”. Taunton tells us that Hitchens hid his problems from his parents in a false attempt to appear heroic (to whom?), because the beatings and bullying probably weren’t, Taunton assumes, as bad as Hitchens says, and he enjoyed the buggery. He also wanted the classical education, for the opportunities it would provide later in life, and for his parents, who couldn’t afford it but went without to provide it for him. All of this, Taunton tells us, is an example of Hitchens’ “moral hypocrisy”.
Most people would call it sensible or pragmatic, maybe even brave, to sacrifice physical comfort and the satisfaction of complaining, for the sake of his education and his mother’s feelings. But to Taunton it’s a major moral failing. It’s interesting to see Taunton’s conviction, too, that Hitchens overstated any cruelty toward himself while downplaying his failings, and apparently feels it’s his duty to correct that impression. Nothing Hitchens says or does can be taken at face value, according to Taunton. It is all a devious lie that only he sees through. Except, of course, for all of the praise Hitchens allegedly heaped upon Taunton. Those words, and only those words, are meant to be taken as sincere and the product of deeply held belief.
Taunton actually says as much when he continually references a line Hitchens’ wrote specifically about his years in school—that the treatment he received there caused him to learn to “keep two sets of books”, the public and private. This is, in context, a perfectly reasonable thing. All children have things they keep from their parents, and all human beings have secrets. But Taunton extrapolates and supposes and guesses and assumes his way to an utter conviction that Hitchens led a complete double life, and that in his final years the “private book” was largely filled with considerations about converting to Christianity, which only he, Larry Taunton, was privy to. He even suggests near the end, after Hitchens’ death, that Hitchens’ own wife knew less of his inner thoughts and feelings on religion than did Taunton. That she was not privy to both sets of books and that her statements about Hitchens’ last days could not be taken at face value due to her ignorance. Taunton’s arrogance in that regard is stunning and caused me to put the book down for a day, overwhelmed with grief for Carol, and shock at Taunton’s persistent, insistent cruelty.
The other anecdote that I think really illuminates the spirit with which this book seems to have been written takes place at a diner where they were conversing with a third man and discussing that tired saw of who is and who is not a “real” Christian. Taunton said that it depends on what the bible says, which, he tells us, caused Hitchens to sit up “totally astonished”. He then goes on to say that, “The idea of the bible as sole arbiter of what distinguishes authentic Christianity from counterfeit versions of it, a concept as old as Christianity itself, left him (Hitchens) dumbfounded.”
Naturally there are no quotes from Hitchens, no words to support the assumption that he was “astonished” or “dumbfounded” by these incredibly common ideas. He was well versed in the concept of solo scriptura, had brought it up himself earlier in the conversation, and there is no reason to suppose that Taunton’s mind-reading is correct. It seems more likely that, were he as surprised as Taunton suggests, it was at receiving such a simple-minded answer in place of a potentially interesting conversation. Or maybe he was surprised that Taunton thought “it depends on what the bible says” was even an answer to his question. (Spoiler: It wasn’t.)
The Christian view of this book seems to be that it’s the story of two wildly different men who managed to become friends in spite of their diametrically opposed viewpoints. I didn’t get that at all. The book I read was about Christopher Hitchens being an arrogant, selfish, ignorant asshole and Larry Taunton being kind and generous and Christian enough to be his friend anyway.
Taunton knew how his book would come across and attempted to forestall it in the introduction by telling us that some people might think it was him getting the last word, winning a final debate, etc., but it’s really not. We’re expected to trust him on that, because he’s a Christian and a pastor and, of course, the dead man’s friend. But that's a lie. He rewrote his dead friend’s entire life, made him look as hypocritical, cowardly, and morally corrupt as possible, and ended by mourning his inability to convert him. He wants to be congratulated for loving such a terrible person, publicly and profitably. Yet he failed to include a single truly loving word, and without that, it’s just an easy hatchet job on a man who can't fight back.
The first two thirds of the book is basically Hitchens’ biography according to Taunton, beginning with his school days and analyzing his childhood and family. None of this is new information, nearly all of it is culled directly from Hitchens’ own writings (mainly his autobiography, Hitch-22) and annotated as such. But the analysis is all Taunton’s and doesn’t really have any supporting evidence. If you didn’t know better you might think that they grew up together and that Taunton has firsthand knowledge for his claims. Only much later does he admit that he and Hitchens became friends in 2008, and by then the reader has already absorbed Taunton’s agenda-driven interpretation of Hitchens’ entire life up to then as fact. Even if I knew nothing at all of Hitchens, his life, and his work, I would be appalled to see anyone torn apart so brutally, his every word questioned, every act credited with the worst possible motive, by someone who insists so defensively that they really were friends.
The truth, Taunton tell us, is that his good friend Christopher Hitchens was a fraud. A sham. A man who claimed atheism in a moment of rebellion against the god he knew perfectly well to exist and then made such a good living at it that he had to continue the lie at all costs. Hitchens, according to Taunton, was merely an actor naturally gifted in oratory, which he practiced through debate in school, and combined the shallow knowledge gained by his “wide but not deep reading” with his natural English accent to make tens of thousands of equally ignorant fans think that he knew much more than he did.
Also, lest you think for a moment that Hitchens was a decent person, Taunton informs us that he only cared about important people and celebrities (like Larry Taunton?), he somehow orchestrated his memorial so that none of the lower class could attend, and his character is perfectly summed up by—some random unnamed guy at the memorial who said he was there to see celebrities and never liked Hitch much. If his point was that Hitchens had shit friends, Taunton didn’t need another example. The book itself is sufficient.
The main argument, which Taunton makes at every opportunity (real or imagined) is that Hitchens lacked the courage of his stated convictions in nearly every area of his life. In fact, he apparently lacked courage, period. The word “cowardly” is thrown around more often than one would expect in a book by a close friend, as is the word “effeminate”. There doesn’t seem to be a real reason for it, it’s just very important to Taunton that we know Hitchens was an “effeminate” (no explanation given) child, and he will remind us as often as necessary to insure we don’t forget. Just as it’s important that we know Hitchens is inferior in every way to CS Lewis, another English boarding school survivor whom Taunton didn’t know as a student.
I had been warned that the book contained a lot of kicking a man when he’s dead, but what I didn’t expect was how painful those petty, cowardly, self-congratulatory little blows would be to read. The thought of this being the work of a man who said over and over again that they were “good friends”, “close friends”, “shared a deep friendship” broke my heart two or three times per page. I don’t know what my friends will say about me after I’m dead, but if they can’t do better than this, I hope they at least don’t publish it.
Which isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of compliments in the book. In fact, they comprise much of the final third. They are legion, and lavish, and they are all bestowed upon Taunton by Hitchens. It’s kind of amazing that anyone other than Donald Trump would write a book so full of self-praise, even if he is careful to put it in another’s mouth. It’s only in this portion to we learn how brief their acquaintance really was, after Taunton has finished filtering and analyzing Hitchens’ entire life to date through his own fundamentalist evangelical lens. Presumably we’re supposed to assume that they discussed all of Hitchens’ childhood and his complex thoughts on 9/11 during their two car trips. But they used one of those trips to read and discuss the Gospel of John, and that wouldn’t have left a lot of time for conversational digression.
Taunton does admit from time to time that he doesn’t know for sure that what he’s saying is true, that he supposes, he felt, or he judged by Hitchens’ expression. But these admissions are immediately followed by more guesses and suppositions which he again states as fact.
There are a couple of specific examples I want to mention, for what it’s worth. The first comes from Hitchens’ childhood, something Taunton only knows from the autobiography Hitch-22, where Hitchens’ describes being exposed to the typical English boarding school “beating, bullying, and buggery”. Taunton tells us that Hitchens hid his problems from his parents in a false attempt to appear heroic (to whom?), because the beatings and bullying probably weren’t, Taunton assumes, as bad as Hitchens says, and he enjoyed the buggery. He also wanted the classical education, for the opportunities it would provide later in life, and for his parents, who couldn’t afford it but went without to provide it for him. All of this, Taunton tells us, is an example of Hitchens’ “moral hypocrisy”.
Most people would call it sensible or pragmatic, maybe even brave, to sacrifice physical comfort and the satisfaction of complaining, for the sake of his education and his mother’s feelings. But to Taunton it’s a major moral failing. It’s interesting to see Taunton’s conviction, too, that Hitchens overstated any cruelty toward himself while downplaying his failings, and apparently feels it’s his duty to correct that impression. Nothing Hitchens says or does can be taken at face value, according to Taunton. It is all a devious lie that only he sees through. Except, of course, for all of the praise Hitchens allegedly heaped upon Taunton. Those words, and only those words, are meant to be taken as sincere and the product of deeply held belief.
Taunton actually says as much when he continually references a line Hitchens’ wrote specifically about his years in school—that the treatment he received there caused him to learn to “keep two sets of books”, the public and private. This is, in context, a perfectly reasonable thing. All children have things they keep from their parents, and all human beings have secrets. But Taunton extrapolates and supposes and guesses and assumes his way to an utter conviction that Hitchens led a complete double life, and that in his final years the “private book” was largely filled with considerations about converting to Christianity, which only he, Larry Taunton, was privy to. He even suggests near the end, after Hitchens’ death, that Hitchens’ own wife knew less of his inner thoughts and feelings on religion than did Taunton. That she was not privy to both sets of books and that her statements about Hitchens’ last days could not be taken at face value due to her ignorance. Taunton’s arrogance in that regard is stunning and caused me to put the book down for a day, overwhelmed with grief for Carol, and shock at Taunton’s persistent, insistent cruelty.
The other anecdote that I think really illuminates the spirit with which this book seems to have been written takes place at a diner where they were conversing with a third man and discussing that tired saw of who is and who is not a “real” Christian. Taunton said that it depends on what the bible says, which, he tells us, caused Hitchens to sit up “totally astonished”. He then goes on to say that, “The idea of the bible as sole arbiter of what distinguishes authentic Christianity from counterfeit versions of it, a concept as old as Christianity itself, left him (Hitchens) dumbfounded.”
Naturally there are no quotes from Hitchens, no words to support the assumption that he was “astonished” or “dumbfounded” by these incredibly common ideas. He was well versed in the concept of solo scriptura, had brought it up himself earlier in the conversation, and there is no reason to suppose that Taunton’s mind-reading is correct. It seems more likely that, were he as surprised as Taunton suggests, it was at receiving such a simple-minded answer in place of a potentially interesting conversation. Or maybe he was surprised that Taunton thought “it depends on what the bible says” was even an answer to his question. (Spoiler: It wasn’t.)
The Christian view of this book seems to be that it’s the story of two wildly different men who managed to become friends in spite of their diametrically opposed viewpoints. I didn’t get that at all. The book I read was about Christopher Hitchens being an arrogant, selfish, ignorant asshole and Larry Taunton being kind and generous and Christian enough to be his friend anyway.
Taunton knew how his book would come across and attempted to forestall it in the introduction by telling us that some people might think it was him getting the last word, winning a final debate, etc., but it’s really not. We’re expected to trust him on that, because he’s a Christian and a pastor and, of course, the dead man’s friend. But that's a lie. He rewrote his dead friend’s entire life, made him look as hypocritical, cowardly, and morally corrupt as possible, and ended by mourning his inability to convert him. He wants to be congratulated for loving such a terrible person, publicly and profitably. Yet he failed to include a single truly loving word, and without that, it’s just an easy hatchet job on a man who can't fight back.
February 7, 2018
I had read a lot of vitriol from the secular community regarding this book and made a point of re-reading Hitch-22 since Taunton referenced it in his opening description of Christopher Hitchens. So armed I was looking forward to reading it to see if all the ruckus was justified. As it turns out, the book is rather anti-climactic. There is nothing in the book that would lead one to think there was any deathbed conversion. I have respect for Taunton insofar as any discussions of conversion he writes about is no different than what one would hear from any believer contemplating the death of a non-believing friend who, during the time they were alive, had philosophical and religious discussions about faith and belief and fervently hoped for a last minute change of mind. The book centers around a trip through the Shenandoah valley after a debate that Taunton had moderated and a subsequent trip after the debate that HItchens and Taunton had in Billings Montana. I would recommend watching the debate between Hitchens and Taunton which is freely available on YouTube.
Most apologists are guilty of causal simplification in their arguments against unbelievers and Taunton is no exception. This should preach well to his followers to which this book is very clearly directed. For the unbeliever and/or the fan of Hitchens this book does have something to offer and I'd recommend reading it if for only these two reasons. If you are looking for a compendium of tired old canards and jingoist slogans against atheists this book is for you; you'll not find a better one. The other and more important reason is to see the paucity of Taunton's thinking which is representative of the sort of mind that finds Taunton's sophistry impressive. It is readily apparent Taunton is quite pleased with himself and his conclusions which makes one feel a bit obligated to extend a degree of pity towards him.
Taunton takes Hitchens' expression of "keeping two sets of books" and accuses Hitchens of doing the same thing both in his movement from the Left to the Right and his subsequent support of the Iraq war and his desire to spend time with Taunton (they genuinely liked each other) to find out what Taunton believed and why. Taunton assumes that it is not possible to possess a mind that allows facts to change your opinions over time about your beliefs, even deeply held ones. One can not sit in the pew every week making the outward professions of faith while at the same time holding doubts about certain tenets of one's faith and working through these issues in one's mind, according to Taunton's thinking. You either believe or you don't. Questioning is what Taunton would have you believe is "keeping two sets of books" and he accuses Hitchens of doing exactly that. While publically being a firebrand atheist up to his passing, Taunton interprets Hitchens desire to understand his friend's thinking as evidence that Hitchens was himself "keeping two sets of books" and furthermore was evidence that Hitchens was really considering converting in much the same way Peter Hitchens, Christopher's younger brother, converted later on in life. Anyone who has read Hitchens would see through this in an instant. A more apt example of what Hitchens considered "keeping two sets of books" would be Ted Haggard, the anti-homosexual preacher who lost everything when his long time homosexual relationships and drug usage were exposed.
As I write this review I am reading an article about Taunton resigning from his position as director of the Fixed Point Foundation after being confronted with allegations that he had inappropriate relationships with two young women on the ministry staff, according to sources familiar with the situation. If true, hopefully this will correct Taunton's misunderstanding about what "keeping two sets of books" actually means.
Most apologists are guilty of causal simplification in their arguments against unbelievers and Taunton is no exception. This should preach well to his followers to which this book is very clearly directed. For the unbeliever and/or the fan of Hitchens this book does have something to offer and I'd recommend reading it if for only these two reasons. If you are looking for a compendium of tired old canards and jingoist slogans against atheists this book is for you; you'll not find a better one. The other and more important reason is to see the paucity of Taunton's thinking which is representative of the sort of mind that finds Taunton's sophistry impressive. It is readily apparent Taunton is quite pleased with himself and his conclusions which makes one feel a bit obligated to extend a degree of pity towards him.
Taunton takes Hitchens' expression of "keeping two sets of books" and accuses Hitchens of doing the same thing both in his movement from the Left to the Right and his subsequent support of the Iraq war and his desire to spend time with Taunton (they genuinely liked each other) to find out what Taunton believed and why. Taunton assumes that it is not possible to possess a mind that allows facts to change your opinions over time about your beliefs, even deeply held ones. One can not sit in the pew every week making the outward professions of faith while at the same time holding doubts about certain tenets of one's faith and working through these issues in one's mind, according to Taunton's thinking. You either believe or you don't. Questioning is what Taunton would have you believe is "keeping two sets of books" and he accuses Hitchens of doing exactly that. While publically being a firebrand atheist up to his passing, Taunton interprets Hitchens desire to understand his friend's thinking as evidence that Hitchens was himself "keeping two sets of books" and furthermore was evidence that Hitchens was really considering converting in much the same way Peter Hitchens, Christopher's younger brother, converted later on in life. Anyone who has read Hitchens would see through this in an instant. A more apt example of what Hitchens considered "keeping two sets of books" would be Ted Haggard, the anti-homosexual preacher who lost everything when his long time homosexual relationships and drug usage were exposed.
As I write this review I am reading an article about Taunton resigning from his position as director of the Fixed Point Foundation after being confronted with allegations that he had inappropriate relationships with two young women on the ministry staff, according to sources familiar with the situation. If true, hopefully this will correct Taunton's misunderstanding about what "keeping two sets of books" actually means.
May 22, 2016
Above anything else, this was a story of friendship. How two men, polar opposite in worldview could share a bond brought about by sincerity and kindness. This was not about a conversion or lack of one, but of our shared search for meaning and truth in this world. Christopher Hitchens was forced to take up the hard questions of life and found himself unable to give just a pat answer. Beautiful story and a fast read.
December 14, 2016
This is without question a fascinating book. And it has the clear ring of truth to it, whatever the sceptics might say. In fact, Taunton picks up on one of my favourite lines from le Carré, namely that "a fanatic is always harbouring a secret doubt" - and it would certainly make sense for Hitchens to be like that.
The book has won plaudits from the Christian world, and it's not hard to see why. It is cogently argued, it doesn't claim more than it's possible to claim, it draws conclusions that are far from unreasonable.
And yet. I just kept feeling uncomfortable with it. I think for a start, the title is a misnomer. Far better would have been something like "The Searching of Christopher Hitchens" - less doctrinaire and presumptuous. Because while it is true that atheism is a faith position (and so the title is technically correct), it seems deliberately ambiguous and a little dishonest.
Then there is the depiction of the friendship between these two men. I have no doubts that it was genuine and mutual - that much is clear. And Hitchens was on record testifying to the fact. But the book is essentially based on conversations over two road trips, the first being a couple of days, the second one day. You can cover a lot of ground - and they did. And Hitchens was nothing if not a curious intellectual who respected others with convictions. His lacerations of those he regarded as charlatans are well known (and discussed in this book).
But it just felt a little off. The book seemed to focus so much on how the author's arguments came across, how much his family life (and adopted daughter who is HIV+) impacted Hitchens, how he was able to witness etc. I realise this is unfair - because there is certainly a story to tell here, and it is hard to know how else to tell it without these emphases. I just found it jarring - especially when he couldn't quite resist critical remarks about Hitchens' lifestyle and attitudes.
The most positive feature of this book, though, is the importance of friendship. That both men relished this friendship, and that both had allies and fans who at least raised eyebrows about it. That is so sad but very indicative of the state of public discourse in the west today. Models of bipartisan, or even multipartisan, friendship have seemingly disappeared. So this book does a great service by reminding us that the key always is to seek to win the person, not the argument. If it stimulates people to do that, then we can all rejoice.
But I think I can see why some of Hitchens' fans are so cross about this book (quite apart from whether or not the arguments hold water). And I'm just not sure who is really going to be sufficiently convinced by it to change their minds and therefore change sides. It preaches to the choir a bit too much.
Be that as it may, I do hope that people will read this, especially those on the new atheist or even agnostic sides. Because there is much here to chew on and value. Above all, Hitchens was a remarkable man - that comes across in this book well. And I do think that the world is a poorer place without his writing (I just wish he was around to discuss the 2016 US election).
The book has won plaudits from the Christian world, and it's not hard to see why. It is cogently argued, it doesn't claim more than it's possible to claim, it draws conclusions that are far from unreasonable.
And yet. I just kept feeling uncomfortable with it. I think for a start, the title is a misnomer. Far better would have been something like "The Searching of Christopher Hitchens" - less doctrinaire and presumptuous. Because while it is true that atheism is a faith position (and so the title is technically correct), it seems deliberately ambiguous and a little dishonest.
Then there is the depiction of the friendship between these two men. I have no doubts that it was genuine and mutual - that much is clear. And Hitchens was on record testifying to the fact. But the book is essentially based on conversations over two road trips, the first being a couple of days, the second one day. You can cover a lot of ground - and they did. And Hitchens was nothing if not a curious intellectual who respected others with convictions. His lacerations of those he regarded as charlatans are well known (and discussed in this book).
But it just felt a little off. The book seemed to focus so much on how the author's arguments came across, how much his family life (and adopted daughter who is HIV+) impacted Hitchens, how he was able to witness etc. I realise this is unfair - because there is certainly a story to tell here, and it is hard to know how else to tell it without these emphases. I just found it jarring - especially when he couldn't quite resist critical remarks about Hitchens' lifestyle and attitudes.
The most positive feature of this book, though, is the importance of friendship. That both men relished this friendship, and that both had allies and fans who at least raised eyebrows about it. That is so sad but very indicative of the state of public discourse in the west today. Models of bipartisan, or even multipartisan, friendship have seemingly disappeared. So this book does a great service by reminding us that the key always is to seek to win the person, not the argument. If it stimulates people to do that, then we can all rejoice.
But I think I can see why some of Hitchens' fans are so cross about this book (quite apart from whether or not the arguments hold water). And I'm just not sure who is really going to be sufficiently convinced by it to change their minds and therefore change sides. It preaches to the choir a bit too much.
Be that as it may, I do hope that people will read this, especially those on the new atheist or even agnostic sides. Because there is much here to chew on and value. Above all, Hitchens was a remarkable man - that comes across in this book well. And I do think that the world is a poorer place without his writing (I just wish he was around to discuss the 2016 US election).
August 7, 2019
This book is simply excellent. Larry Taunton displays that even the most militant of atheists when presented with the claims of the Bible must consider its claims, and Christopher Hitchens did just that. This book is not a biography, but more of a detailing of what led Hitchens to his atheism and his cautious questioning of the Bible’s claims.
One gripe I have with the book is the title, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens. This book really has nothing to do with faith according to the Bible’s standards…. What is true faith? “True faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word. At the same time it is a firm confidence that not only to others, but also to me, God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of mere grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. This faith the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel” (HC.21). I doubt that the author has much familiarity with the Reformed creeds and confessions, but I believe this to be as accurate a definition of faith as any. A genuine faith was not expressed by Hitchens nor his family, thus to call this book the faith of Christopher Hitchens is speculative. The book was more so about his tentative look into the Christian faith than his embracing it.
To be clear, I have no doubt that God can call workers into his field at the eleventh hour and receive them into his kingdom through true faith (Matt. 20). We will never know. Furthermore, the author doesn’t make the assertion in this book that there ever was a deathbed conversion. And I would remind the critics of this book who slander the author and his work that this book was written ad fontes and he was a much closer friend of Hitchens than you ever were. You may have read all his works, listened to all his speeches, but Larry listened to his heart and desired to see his friend saved from the eternal punishment that he believed so deeply in. So I would be cautious of listening to the critics and be more inclined to listen to the noted longtime friend of Hitchens.
This book is excellent because it is thoughtful, well balanced, insightful, and led me to a greater respect of Hitchens while demonstrating that deep and true friendships can be made while holding antithetical worldviews.
One gripe I have with the book is the title, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens. This book really has nothing to do with faith according to the Bible’s standards…. What is true faith? “True faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word. At the same time it is a firm confidence that not only to others, but also to me, God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of mere grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. This faith the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel” (HC.21). I doubt that the author has much familiarity with the Reformed creeds and confessions, but I believe this to be as accurate a definition of faith as any. A genuine faith was not expressed by Hitchens nor his family, thus to call this book the faith of Christopher Hitchens is speculative. The book was more so about his tentative look into the Christian faith than his embracing it.
To be clear, I have no doubt that God can call workers into his field at the eleventh hour and receive them into his kingdom through true faith (Matt. 20). We will never know. Furthermore, the author doesn’t make the assertion in this book that there ever was a deathbed conversion. And I would remind the critics of this book who slander the author and his work that this book was written ad fontes and he was a much closer friend of Hitchens than you ever were. You may have read all his works, listened to all his speeches, but Larry listened to his heart and desired to see his friend saved from the eternal punishment that he believed so deeply in. So I would be cautious of listening to the critics and be more inclined to listen to the noted longtime friend of Hitchens.
This book is excellent because it is thoughtful, well balanced, insightful, and led me to a greater respect of Hitchens while demonstrating that deep and true friendships can be made while holding antithetical worldviews.
May 28, 2016
Larry Taunton is an evangelical Christian; Christopher Hitchens was an outspoken atheist. And yet these two found an endearing friendship that took place in the last years of Hitchens' life, before he died of cancer in 2011. This book will challenge Christians who are afraid to enter the lives of those who think differently than they do, as well as atheists who think that all Christians are uninformed idiots.
Hitchens was a brilliant and vehement defender of atheism who rarely passed up an opportunity to attack religions of all kinds, but Taunton tells us what was going on behind the scenes -- Hitchens formed friendships with evangelicals, admitted that he longed for a "higher love," on several occasions stuck up for his friend Taunton before atheist scoffers, and even engaged in a road trip Bible study of the book of John, which Taunton describes in some detail here.
This is not only an engaging page turner (much more a delightful story than a heady philosophical discourse), but is also a powerful example of how Christians should engage with the skeptic, with a humble reminder that the lives we lead are just as important as the words we speak. My favorite book of the year by a long shot.
Hitchens was a brilliant and vehement defender of atheism who rarely passed up an opportunity to attack religions of all kinds, but Taunton tells us what was going on behind the scenes -- Hitchens formed friendships with evangelicals, admitted that he longed for a "higher love," on several occasions stuck up for his friend Taunton before atheist scoffers, and even engaged in a road trip Bible study of the book of John, which Taunton describes in some detail here.
This is not only an engaging page turner (much more a delightful story than a heady philosophical discourse), but is also a powerful example of how Christians should engage with the skeptic, with a humble reminder that the lives we lead are just as important as the words we speak. My favorite book of the year by a long shot.
January 13, 2019
In order to read this book I needed a bible in one hand and a dictionary in the other. Rarely have I put down a book to watch a debate, but in this case I admit I might have spent more time watching Christopher’s debates than reading the book. So much so that half way through the book I started reading his narrative in his voice picturing his actual face. Which, from a Christian perspective, was actually helpful. He was a real person, a real soul seemingly lost for all eternity to his own pride as described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:22-26.
The author’s example of unconditional love for Christopher challenges me to make a better effort to show Christ-like love those who oppose my faith or are indifferent to it. I suppose that is the highest compliment I could give to an author, in that this book spurs me on to become more like Christ. Well worth the read, but I caution you to budget time for the vortex of YouTube clips of the debates.
The author’s example of unconditional love for Christopher challenges me to make a better effort to show Christ-like love those who oppose my faith or are indifferent to it. I suppose that is the highest compliment I could give to an author, in that this book spurs me on to become more like Christ. Well worth the read, but I caution you to budget time for the vortex of YouTube clips of the debates.
September 7, 2019
I understand the fascination with Christianity and the presence of spirituality in nonChristians that can be akin to that of Christians. The author attempts to explain the ethical and spiritual behavior of a dying man from a Christian perspective. I found it not believable and offensive even though beautifully organized, written, and well-meant. Hitchens was an atheist who was versed in Christianity and was critical of it. Nearing his death, it would have been natural for him to question everything in his life and to reorganize it. I understand that the author knew Hitchens and I did not. However, I think the author may not have understood the meanderings of a person who had rejected Christianity but could not ignore it.
April 6, 2016
It’s hard to know what to say about this book other than you should read it.
May 19, 2016
Christopher Hitchens, dying of esophageal cancer, famously said that if anyone who knew him or read his books heard of a deathbed conversion, it would either not be true, or his body would have been so ravaged by his cancer he would not have known what he was saying. There would be no death bed conversions. I think we should take him at his word. Taunton, for all his rhetoric, does not. He spends a great deal of time exploring Hitchens life as a young boy in an attempt to explain away his atheism. The author seems unwilling to accept the fact that Hitchens was a brilliant man, a wonderful writer, an inspired logician, and that he did not, as Taunton seems to want to believe, convert to Christianity during the last days of his life.
The book was, for me, a disappointment.
The book was, for me, a disappointment.
March 19, 2017
Excellent book. Could have done with a better title. Although the author is at great pains to not say Hitchens came to faith, you get the feeling he is always working against his title. The book shows that there was much more to Christopher Hitchens than strident atheism - he at least took time to engage with those who genuinely believe, and to seek to understand their position.
Taunton maybe over-eggs the pudding in the first part with his psychoanalysis of Hitchens, but once he gets into the concrete of his interactions with him - fascinating. Resonates with what you see of Hitchens in interaction with Doug Wilson in the documentary Collision.
Taunton maybe over-eggs the pudding in the first part with his psychoanalysis of Hitchens, but once he gets into the concrete of his interactions with him - fascinating. Resonates with what you see of Hitchens in interaction with Doug Wilson in the documentary Collision.
May 11, 2016
Fascinating.
This is a book that is going to be loved by some and hated by others, and your reaction to it is going to probably depend on what you think about God. For my part, I thought it was a fascinating read that caused me to want to listen to some of Hitchens' debates, read his memoir, and read some of his articles. I think this book helped me to understand Christopher Hitchens better, and it was a great encouragement to me to pursue good and deep relationships with people who think differently from me.
This is a book that is going to be loved by some and hated by others, and your reaction to it is going to probably depend on what you think about God. For my part, I thought it was a fascinating read that caused me to want to listen to some of Hitchens' debates, read his memoir, and read some of his articles. I think this book helped me to understand Christopher Hitchens better, and it was a great encouragement to me to pursue good and deep relationships with people who think differently from me.
September 6, 2017
Not sure what I was expecting to be honest, but the subtitle "the restless soul of the world's most notorious atheist" pretty much gave it away.
Larry Alex Taunton is obviously a mind reader, or just simply full of himself and his religion. Was not able to find any "genuine compassion" in this book. Whoever has him as a friend, definitely is not in need of any enemies...
Larry Alex Taunton is obviously a mind reader, or just simply full of himself and his religion. Was not able to find any "genuine compassion" in this book. Whoever has him as a friend, definitely is not in need of any enemies...
March 12, 2019
A book about Christopher Hitchens is going to be, by the very nature of its subject, very conflicting. A contrarian by heart, Hitchens defies the moulds many (including he himself) try and put him in. I was indeed unsettled reading this, although more from personal rather than ideological reasons.
I will say that I learned few important lessons from this book. For instance Taunton makes a strong case for understanding and empathy with those for whom we have deep disagreements. If one is to make case for convincing a friend to give up their most deeply held beliefs for your own, having some background about how and why they got there is indispensable. We are not just a skin sack full of ethereal ideas, we are embodied souls with a rich tapestry of stories and scars that define us. Friendship is simply the journey of exploring that tapestry together, and it's obvious that Larry Taunton cared very much for his friend Hitch.
But in the end, something felt very wrong about this book. One has to look no further than the very reviews below to see how polarized it is. I couldn't shake the feeling, present through the middle and end sections certainly, that there is something incredibly opportunist about this. While I don't doubt anything of the facts or stories presented here, I find it rather gauche, even indecent to try and make a point using the life of someone who so vehemently disagreed with that very point. As someone who very much believes in the gospel and has spent his life sharing it, I can't endorse this method of evangelism. I don't even believe that "religious belief is deeply personal" and therefore shouldn't be talked about in polite company, but I do think that a postmortem vignette of a life that was deeply troubled and conflicted is not the right thing to do. Maybe if he lived a few more years, as Taunton states, something may have came about. But we will never know, and using that question mark of all question marks to make your case in published form just seems wrong to me.
I will say that I learned few important lessons from this book. For instance Taunton makes a strong case for understanding and empathy with those for whom we have deep disagreements. If one is to make case for convincing a friend to give up their most deeply held beliefs for your own, having some background about how and why they got there is indispensable. We are not just a skin sack full of ethereal ideas, we are embodied souls with a rich tapestry of stories and scars that define us. Friendship is simply the journey of exploring that tapestry together, and it's obvious that Larry Taunton cared very much for his friend Hitch.
But in the end, something felt very wrong about this book. One has to look no further than the very reviews below to see how polarized it is. I couldn't shake the feeling, present through the middle and end sections certainly, that there is something incredibly opportunist about this. While I don't doubt anything of the facts or stories presented here, I find it rather gauche, even indecent to try and make a point using the life of someone who so vehemently disagreed with that very point. As someone who very much believes in the gospel and has spent his life sharing it, I can't endorse this method of evangelism. I don't even believe that "religious belief is deeply personal" and therefore shouldn't be talked about in polite company, but I do think that a postmortem vignette of a life that was deeply troubled and conflicted is not the right thing to do. Maybe if he lived a few more years, as Taunton states, something may have came about. But we will never know, and using that question mark of all question marks to make your case in published form just seems wrong to me.
October 30, 2016
During the last few years of his life, Christopher Hitchens befriended Christian apologist Larry Alex Taunton. They debated each other, they went on road trips together, and while they drove, they studied the Bible. In this brief biography, Taunton gives readers a peek at the inner life of a man who was much more spiritually and mentally conflicted than he often led people to believe. Continue reading this review here.
May 31, 2017
The first half, an overview of the major features of Hitchens' life and thought, is engaging, but it is the second half, which focuses on the author's personal experience with Hitchens, where the book really comes alive. Recommended.
[Counting for "A memoir or autobiography" in Challies 2017 Reading Challenge.]
[Counting for "A memoir or autobiography" in Challies 2017 Reading Challenge.]
September 7, 2017
I don't know what I was expecting, but this wasn't it. Still, it is a very worthwhile read. I read it during a less than 10-hour drive (I wasn't driving). It is written very well. Biggest takeaway: the need to live authentically as a christian.
March 12, 2017
Very unique, very interesting, very thought prokoving. Very, very good.
July 22, 2018
Fascinating book. Well-written and compelling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews