There is no doubt that Hitchens’s hated God. There is also no doubt that his polemic, God is not Great: How religion poisons everything, is a weak critique of its subject. God proved to be one target that brought this anti-theist into the view of many Christians who had previously not heard of him.

However, on real tyranny, the sort that sucks away the lifeblood of free societies, he was right. He fought tyranny with descriptions of reality and oppression with his polemical voice. He loved the truth of things, inasmuch as he thought they could be known. He once said that the reason he was a journalist was because he didn’t trust the media to tell him what was going on so he had to find out for himself. Seeking truth was his profession and writing was his way of life. Along with his wit and rhetorical skill, this is why many Christians admired him and why some of them spoke kind words about him when he died.

Then there are also the ones who compare him to his Christian brother and also a polemic journalist. They said it was Peter, rather than Christopher who sought after truth, while Hitch sought fame. These two issues need to be unpicked. The first is the matter of seeing truth, the second fame. In good biblical fashion let me deal with the last first.

It is safe to say that Hitch was not afraid of fame. He loved the notoriety, but not for its own sake. It was the disagreement and mental joust that he was after and that at least as much as being recognised. But I can go beyond assertion. Hitchens loved the works of Orwell and recommended his essay Why I Write to his readers. Here Orwell sets out four points on why people write. The first of these he says is sheer egoism. “…It is humbug to pretend that this is not a motive, and a strong one.” The validity of the claim that Hitchens was after fame is a fair one, but to strip all other motives from him is unfair. He loved truth and sought after it.

But why would somebody then say that it was Peter who sought truth, while his brother did not. If Jesus is the way, truth and light and if nobody gets to the Father but through him, then this truth was not something that Hitch sought. However, there is another form of truth which he did seek and which he very much cherished. That is the reality of how things are, particularly within the world of politics and international affairs. These are the places where power is the highest prize and where truth often dies along with love and mercy, on the frontlines. This truth he sought after thirstily and it is for this that we commend him and remember his spirit that inspires and encourages others to follow. He would have answered Pilate’s rhetorical question: “What is truth?” with a mouth full of it.

As Christians we must recognise that Hitchens sought after this truth. His wit and the gift of rhetoric that he enjoyed are gifts that his heavenly ‘Tyrant’ gave him. Being allowed to participate in the world are gifts of common grace, given to all of us. Common grace does not save us, it does not reconcile us to God, but it does allow all of us, saved or unsaved, to seek after truth in the same way that Hitch did. He would hate that it was put in those terms, but he suffered under common grace. Thanks be to God for it.