Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens, and the Meaning of True Compassion
Christopher Hitchens, the late atheist and intellectual provocateur, was one of the most vocal critics of Mother Teresa. Among his many critiques, one of his most striking statements was:
“She was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty.”
Hitchens argued that Mother Teresa did not seek to alleviate poverty in any systemic way but instead glorified suffering, seeing it as a spiritual virtue rather than a problem to be solved. He contended that she did not strive to end the suffering of the poor but instead perpetuated it by upholding a theology that viewed suffering as redemptive.
This claim, like much of Hitchens’ work, is both sharp and controversial. It is also deeply revealing—not just about Mother Teresa, but about the fundamental differences between a secular, humanistic worldview and a Christian understanding of suffering, service, and love.
In this post, we will explore:
Hitchens’ critique and its underlying assumptions
The theological foundation of Mother Teresa’s work
The difference between relief work and transformative ministry
Whether her legacy should be understood as promoting suffering or alleviating it
A biblical perspective on poverty, suffering, and service
I. Hitchens’ Critique: Was Mother Teresa a Friend of Poverty?
Christopher Hitchens’ critique of Mother Teresa was not incidental; it was a major focus of his work. He dedicated an entire book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, to dismantling her reputation. He argued that:
Mother Teresa’s mission glorified suffering rather than seeking to eliminate it
Her organization provided inadequate medical care, despite receiving millions in donations
She allied with questionable political figures, including dictators, without challenging their policies
Her ministry did not focus on reforming unjust systems but instead reinforced a status quo of poverty
Hitchens, an avowed atheist, operated from a fundamentally secular framework, evaluating her work through a lens of economic justice and political activism. His expectation was that those who serve the poor should seek to eradicate poverty itself, advocating for systemic change, wealth redistribution, and social justice policies. In his view, any religious response to suffering that did not explicitly challenge political structures was a failure—or worse, an intentional reinforcement of oppression.
Mother Teresa, in contrast, did not approach suffering as a problem to be solved through economic or political restructuring. Her mission was not activism; it was incarnational love—being present with those who suffered, offering care, dignity, and companionship. She saw Christ in the poor, and she sought to minister to Him by serving them.
This fundamental difference in worldview is key to understanding both her work and Hitchens’ criticism of it.
II. Mother Teresa’s Theology of Suffering and Service
Mother Teresa’s approach to suffering was deeply rooted in her Catholic faith. She believed that suffering, when united with Christ, had redemptive value. This belief is not unique to her; it is central to Christian theology.
Paul writes in Colossians 1:24:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”
This verse does not mean that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient but that believers are invited to participate in His sufferings for the sake of others.
Mother Teresa took this principle to heart. She saw suffering as a means of drawing closer to God—not as something to be sought, but as something to be embraced when it came. She did not see her mission as eradicating poverty, because Jesus Himself said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11). Instead, she saw her mission as serving Christ in the poor, ensuring that they did not suffer alone, but were loved, cared for, and given dignity.
To some, this may appear fatalistic, as if she resigned the poor to their suffering rather than seeking to liberate them from it. But to Mother Teresa, suffering was not an abstract problem to be solved; it was a reality to be met with love.
III. Relief Work vs. Transformative Ministry
Hitchens’ critique also reveals a common misunderstanding about the nature of Christian service. There is a significant difference between relief work and transformative ministry:
Relief work seeks to remove suffering by addressing its material causes—providing food, shelter, medical care, and social programs.
Transformative ministry seeks to bring Christ into suffering, walking alongside the poor, loving them in their distress, and offering a presence that dignifies rather than simply “fixes” their condition.
While both are necessary, Mother Teresa’s calling was the latter. She was not a social worker; she was a missionary. Her work was not about building hospitals or reforming government policies. It was about meeting people in their lowest state and loving them with the love of Christ.
Hitchens judged her by the standards of social activism, but she did not operate within that paradigm. She operated within the paradigm of self-giving love.
IV. Did Mother Teresa Perpetuate Suffering?
One of the strongest accusations against Mother Teresa is that she provided inadequate medical care in her missions. Some have claimed that she accepted millions in donations yet did not use them to improve the quality of her facilities. This, critics argue, shows that she was not interested in alleviating suffering but in maintaining an environment where suffering could be “spiritually meaningful.”
While it is true that some of her facilities were rudimentary, it is also true that she provided care to those who otherwise would have died alone in the streets. Her ministry was not about providing cutting-edge healthcare; it was about offering dignity to those whom the world had discarded.
Was it the best medical care possible? No. But was it care that no one else was offering? Yes.
Mother Teresa was not running a modern hospital; she was running a house of love. To judge her by the standards of medical efficiency is to misunderstand her mission entirely.
V. A Biblical Perspective on Poverty, Suffering, and Service
Scripture does not promise the eradication of poverty in this fallen world. Instead, it calls believers to respond to suffering with love, generosity, and presence.
James 1:27 says:
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Jesus Himself did not come as a political revolutionary; He did not seek to overthrow Rome or eliminate economic disparity. Instead, He walked among the poor, healed the sick, and suffered with and for humanity.
Mother Teresa modeled this same approach. She did not see the poor as a problem to be fixed but as people to be loved.
Hitchens viewed her work through a purely materialistic lens, where success is measured by economic progress and political change. But in the Christian framework, success is measured by love.
Conclusion: Was Mother Teresa a Friend of the Poor?
Christopher Hitchens’ claim that Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor but a friend of poverty fundamentally misrepresents her mission. She was not indifferent to suffering, nor did she seek to preserve it for its own sake. Rather, she sought to meet suffering with love, to serve Christ in the least of these, and to bring dignity where the world had abandoned it.
She may not have worked to eliminate poverty, but she worked tirelessly to ensure that those in poverty knew they were loved. And in the kingdom of God, that kind of love is of far greater worth than any political solution.