the unbeliever and christians

(fragments of a statement by Albert Camus at the Dominican Monastery of Latour-Maubourg in 1948)

Inasmuch as you have been so kind as to invite a man who does not share your convictions to come and answer the very general question that you are raising in these conversations, before telling you what I think unbelievers expect of Christians, I should like first to acknowledge your intellectual generosity by stating a few principles.

First, there is a lay pharisaism in which I shall strive not to indulge. To me a lay pharisee is the person who pretends to believe that Christianity is an easy thing and asks of the Christian, on the basis of an external view of Christianity, more than he asks of himself. I believe indeed that the Christian has many obligations but that it is not up to the man who rejects them himself to recall their existence to anyone who has already accepted them. If there is anyone who can ask anything of the Christian, it is the Christian himself. The conclusion is that if I allowed myself at the end of this statement to demand of you certain duties, these could only be duties that it is essential to ask of any man today, whether he is or is not a Christian.

Secondly, I wish to declare also that, not feeling that I possess any absolute truth or message, I shall never start from the supposition that Christian truth is illusory, but merely from the fact that I could not accept it. ...

Having said that, it will be easier for me to state my third and last principle. It is simple and obvious. I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds. This is tantamount to saying that the world of today needs Christians who remain Christians. The other day at the Sorbonne, speaking to a Marxist lecturer, a Catholic priest said in public that he too was anticlerical. Well, I don’t like priests that are anticlerical any more than philosophies that are ashamed of themselves. Hence I shall not, as far as I am concerned, try to pass myself off as a Christian in your presence. I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But I do not share your hope, and I continue to struggle against this universe in which children suffer and die.
…

And why shouldn’t I say here what I have written elsewhere? For a long time during those frightful years I waited for a great voice to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew that the spirit would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation when faced with force. It seems that that voice did speak up. But I assure you that millions of men like me did not hear it and that at that time believers and unbelievers alike shared a solitude that continued to spread as the days went by and the executioners multiplied.

It has been explained to me since that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But that it was in the style of the encyclicals, which is not at all clear. The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood! Who could fail to feel where the true condemnation lies in this case and to see that this example by itself gives part of the reply, perhaps the whole reply, that you ask of me. What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today. The grouping we need is a grouping of men resolved to speak out clearly and to pay up personally. When a Spanish bishop blesses political executions, he ceases to be a bishop or a Christian or even a man; he is a dog just like one who, backed by an ideology, orders that execution without doing the dirty work himself. We are still waiting, and I am waiting, for a grouping of all those who refuse to be dogs and are resolved to pay the price that must be paid so that man can be something more than a dog.
…

And now, what can Christians do for us?

To begin with, give up the empty quarrels, the first of which is the quarrel about pessimism. … By what right could a Christian or Marxist accuse me, for example, of pessimism? I was not the one to invent the misery of the human being or the terrifying formulas of divine malediction. I was not the one to shout Nemo bonus or the damnation of unbaptized children. I was not the one who said that man was incapable of saving himself by his own means and that in the depths of his degradation his only hope was in the grace of God. And as for the famous Marxist optimism! No one has carried distrust of man further, and ultimately the economic fatalities of this universe seem more terrible than divine whims.

Christians and Communists will tell me that their optimism is based on a longer range, that it is superior to all the rest, and that God or history, according to the individual, is the satisfying end-product of their dialectic. I can indulge in the same reasoning. If Christianity is pessimistic as to man, it is optimistic as to human destiny. Well, I can say that, pessimistic as to human destiny, I am optimistic as to man. And not in the name of a humanism that always seemed to me to fall short, but in the name of an ignorance that tries to negate nothing.

This means that the words “pessimism” and “optimism” need to be clearly defined and that, until we can do so, we must pay attention to what unites us rather that to what separates us.
…

That, I believe, is all I had to say. We are faced with evil. And, as for me, I feel rather as Augustine did before becoming a Christian when he said: “I tried to find the source of evil and I got nowhere.” But it is also true that I, and a few others, know what must be done, if not to reduce evil, at least not to add to it. Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you don’t help us, who else in the world can help us do this?

Between the forces of terror and the forces of dialogue, a great unequal battle has begun. I have nothing but reasonable illusions as to the outcome of that battle. But I believe it must be fought, and I know that certain men at least have resolved to do so. I merely fear that they will occasionally feel somewhat alone, that they are in fact alone, and that after an interval of two thousand years we may see a sacrifice of Socrates repeated several times. The program for the future is either a permanent dialogue or the solemn and significant putting to death of any who have experienced dialogue. After having contributed my reply, the question that I ask Christians is this: “Will Socrates still be alone and is there nothing in him and in your doctrine that urges you to join us?”

It may be, I am well aware, that Christianity will answer negatively. Oh, not by your mouths, I am convinced. But it may be, and this is even more probable, that Christianity will insist on maintaining a compromise or else on giving its condemnations the obscure form of the encyclical. Possibly it will insist on losing once and for all the virtue of revolt and indignation that belonged to it long ago. In that case Christians will live and Christianity will die. In that case the others will in fact pay for the sacrifice. In any case such a future is not within my province to decide, despite all the hope and anguish it awakens in me. And what I know – which sometimes creates a deep longing in me – is that if Christians made up their minds to it, millions of voices – millions, I say – throughout the world would be added to the appeal of a handful of isolated individuals who, without any sort of affiliation, today intercede almost everywhere and ceaselessly for children and for men.

(excerpted from Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays)

Comments

[hellbent]

Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children.

This is the sort of simple, common sense wisdom we are sorely lacking these days. So many people do nothing because they lack the patience for incremental progress and improvement, choosing instead to wait forever for a magic cure-all that never comes.

The most recent example was yesterday's silly Not One Damn Dime protest. It's just a little something to express displeasure with the Chimperor, but out come the bed-wetters! "This won't cripple our economy, so it's not worth the bother!" Or the self-important converse "My favorite waitress will surely be fired if I participate!"

What a bunch of pathetic shits we are, unwilling to rescue one child from torture unless we can rescue them all, then when the tortured kids form a coalition and say, "Here we all are, together at last, rescue us!", we dismiss them as a special interest group.

it is not up to the man who rejects them himself to recall their existence to anyone who has already accepted them

Yeah, that too. Whether it's Sean Hannity dismissing a critic of the oil industry because the critic owns a car or some vegan lumping me in with McDonald's customers because I only eat two vegetarian meals out of three, the net effect is retarding progress by insisting it happen faster, faster, faster!

[calliope]

Possibly it [Christianity] will insist on losing once and for all the virtue of revolt and indignation that belonged to it long ago. In that case Christians will live and Christianity will die.

How prescient. Christianity IS dead, and what we have left are people who call themselves Christians but in no way represent the original concept; we'll call them neo-Christians, so absorbed in the self they are incapable of revolt and indignation.

Oh, I know there are a few authentic Christians out there, but you can guage how far most Christians have fallen from Christianity by the Unbeliever's level of discomfort when asked if he/she is a Christian. I can remember 20 yrs ago feeling a little uncomfortable; now, I'm quick to say I'm not a Christian, and if they ask if I attend church, I say YES! The Church of the Open Mind. Being called a Christian would be an insult.

[Tess]

Since I am a beliver, not that I want to be the one you argue with, I will tell you. If you start with a prayer, maybe a childish prayer, you will find that the mother/father/comforter is with you in the dark.

Of the trinity, I have always felt a comonality with the "comforter"

I know things look dark now, but what you have heard is true.

I have had some experiences that make me think that Christianity is not dead.

[dilettantedude]

Oh, crap! Now I have to add another damn book to the pile. The pile grows, my time diminishes. Where I expire will be nothing but a huge pile of unread books....

[Dilettantedude]

"I believe indeed that the Christian has many obligations but that it is not up to the man who rejects them himself to recall their existence to anyone who has already accepted them."

Excuse me, but bullshit. Is it not the responsibility of honest people to call attention to dishonesty? If someone like the President of the U.S. says he is a Christian, and gullible, naive people simply believe him, is it not up to the media and the public to then publish Jesus Sermon on the Mount, and compare his public behavior to his public claims?

How else are we to expose liars and hypocrites in public office? Human society depends critically on interpersonal honesty, or it falls into savagery and chaos. When it is violated at the highest levels of leadership, where is that society being led?

[Lanesha]

i think that this essay is somewhat shameful to Christians. Camus really made me think about myself in my walk with God. Christians get so caught up on the little things,that major problems throughout the world are being left up to the unbeliever to solve. If we are fighting for a change of seperation of state and church, why arent we involved? why do we isolate ourselves? The Bible doessay for us to not be of the world but why not try to make a difference and show the unbeliver the Jesus that's within us?

[BridgetAnjellla]

Ñ Íîâûì 2008 ÃÎÄÎÌ.!

[Jaycee]

I have a personal belief that the codified system of beliefs gives too much credence to the followers.
A Christian feels secure in condemning behavior because they are Christian, without reasonable consideration to anything else.
Where I live abortion is currently a hotbed of debate - fueled in part by legislation and greatly fanned by Christians. However did not their codified beliefs give man (humankind) free will, so I remain boggled by their continual statements that their belief in a codified belief gives them the right to remove the right of choice (free will) from others. To me the answer is if you choose not to participate (in the act of abortion) then do not do so - it is your free will.
As a personal choice I do not ascribe to a single system of codified beliefs, instead I have a personal set of beliefs that are flexible and grow with me as I learn. I learn as I experience, and as I listen to the wisdom of others - much of this wisdom has come from the many codified and non-codified systems of beliefs that exist today.
However I do not say that those who believe in torture, murder and destructive behavior have a right to behave in such manners - as it impinges on the free will of others (the victims), nor do I believe that this behavior should go uncontested by the individual or the masses.
Another personal belief of mine has led to many Christians behaving abominably towards myself and some of those I associate with. I learned much about balance and moderation from pagan beliefs, and know as many pagans as Christians. And yet due to the public ascendancy of the Christian religion they feel secure in vilifying those who spout different wisdom and an equally peaceful message.
Yet if we adopted balance in all our views and actions would this not improve the world - if we balance our worship and honor of the male and female in thought as well as action - if balance our worship and honor of nature and man (in thought as well as action)?
I am imperfect, I am human and I strive to learn, to grow and to enhance my own system of belief, to ask, to question, to love.
I am often more antagonistic than is productive, and in one of the small truths it is our actions in the smallest scenarios (as opposed to grand, large scale situations) that are oft most revealing.
I get truly incensed about about manners when it comes to seating on a bus! I generally (to my shame not always) let people who have waited longer than myself onto the bus first - whether they be male or female, if I am lucky enough to get a seat I let those standing remove themselves from the bus first. However the simple bus is a shockingly revealing situation - people push and shove (generally impose their will on others) to get on and off first, and unfortunately I have a tendency to call them on it (much to the amusement others). In my finer moments I wait my turn, walking at a reasonable pace and in peace to allow those closer to the doors (therefore often having boarded before myself) their chance to remove themselves before me.
From my limited wisdom, I hope this has given you something to think about, to smile about and perhaps to gain wisdom or inspire it in others.

[kamagra online]

sympathetic character, really makes me laugh lots with sympathetic friends this fable is great with their follies and their occurrences, while the original feel very good the other blog.