I think every contemporary Christian should read Albert Camus' The Unbeliever and Christians. Camus is speaking to a room full of Christians and briefly sums up his concerns with the religion and those who adhere to it, along with both his points of agreement and why he could never be a Christian. It's a fascinating piece that should give both believer and unbeliever food for thought.
If I had to summarize what Camus is getting at here, it is that he is concerned with action, and as a Christian, we can think of this as being concerned with ethics, as neighbor-love, the primary ethical task of the Christian.
First, Camus addresses something that might be even more relevant today than it was when he first spoke these words: he says that the unbeliever should not ask more of the Christian than he asks of himself.1 As someone who tries to stay abreast of the interactions between Christians and unbeliever, I can personally attest that this is all too common (and generally stems from a terrifying misconception of Christianity). What I've witnessed time and time again is an attempt to use Christ's words or actions against Christians in an attempt to highlight some hypocrisy. However, this is rarely effective because Christ's words or actions are being misused or taken out of context (much like Satan's temptation of Christ in the devil: he quotes Scripture each time to tempt Christ, but twists it each time. Sound familiar?) Moreover, when these unbelievers quote Christ back at Christians, they are often asking more of the Christian than they are asking of themselves. You, the Christian, must hold yourself to this much higher standard if you're going to insist on some sort of morality for the rest of us! This clearly is not how Christianity works, but you wouldn't believe how common this is.
Camus states that Christianity has many obligations (quite true indeed), but that it is not up to the man who rejects those obligations to recall their existence to one who accepts them.
Now, I don't know if I agree completely with this statement. (And frankly, I'm not sure how compatible this is with Camus' broader point that he makes later concerning dialogue, but we'll get there.) Camus speaks of a "lay pharasaism" in which laypersons attempt to impose their (understandably) weak understanding of Christianity onto the Christian leaders without any sort of study, or even connection with or adherence to, the doctrines to which they throw their criticisms. It would certainly serve Christians well to point out this "lay pharasaism" more often instead of getting lost in the weeds in an argument with someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about and hasn't got a genuine interest in the truth, but rather just proving Christianity wrong.
Throughout this short piece, it's clear that Camus has an incredible respect for Christianity, even if, for him, there is much to criticize. And this is certainly something to take note for the Christian, as there can be much to learn from someone viewing our beliefs from the outside objectively, but respectfully. But perhaps this should be more explicitly noted by the unbeliever, especially one who's philosophical, economic, or cultural thinking inherited much of Camus' thinking.
Indeed, for Camus, only the Christian can ask anything of the Christian beyond the essential duties that can be asked of every man.
And, for Camus (and I think for many of us), one of those essential duties is dialogue. In fact, (and looking at the title, "the unbeliever and Christians”), the fact that dialogue is the primary thread in this talk/essay shouldn't be surprising. Camus believes that the world needs dialogue. Falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence (ie no dialogue at all.)2 The only possible dialogue is between people who remain what they are and speak their minds.3 This statement contains much more nuance than it might first seem.
At first, Camus seems to be calling for absolute free speech, a "marketplace of ideas" where the most truthful speech comes out on top. However, his statement that falsehood is as much the opposite of dialogue as silence adds some interesting twists in this otherwise straight road. We must turn to the existentialist idea of authenticity. One of the primary tasks of the individual is authenticity, and living authentically in the world. This is a primary emphasis for the existentialists of the 1950s such as Camus and Sartre. Camus is arguing more for dialogue between two individuals who are living authentically. There can be authentic Christians, and there can be authentic unbelievers, and there can be authentic dialogue between the two. This is what we must strive for.
Camus then identifies where he agrees with, and disagrees with, Christianity. He says, "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."4 Now, I don't intend to debate Camus on the problem of evil in this essay, as that is a large enough topic that it could easily derail us here. Rather, I want to address what my initial observation might be to Camus' statement. He is correct that a biblical Christian holds a revulsion from evil. And he is correct that a biblical Christian has hope. But where I might point Camus is that a Christian recognizes the evils of the world—perhaps more acutely than unbelievers—and nevertheless has hope. There is a sense in which Christian hope springs out of the paradoxical absurdity of Christ's work in the midst of evil, darkness, and terror. The world is full of horror, nevertheless Christ is with me. He holds my right hand.
A (limited) analogy might be that of a sheep and its shepherd. The shepherd leads its sheep through a dangerous and treacherous path. The sheep does not blame the shepherd for doing so, and does not question the existence of the shepherd, or the goodness of the shepherd, because of the existence of the treacherous path. Rather, the sheep is all the more thankful for the shepherd in their lives, as surely it would have already been slaughtered were it not for the guidance of the shepherd. And, in an all-too-human turn, the sheep, once it has found the greener pastures on the other side of the treacherous path, likely remembers not the guidance of the shepherd that led it there.
Putting that aside, we turn to Camus and his insistence of authentic dialogue. he claims that he waited anxiously for Rome to speak out during World War II.5 When Rome did speak out, it was ambiguous. Where the earthly representatives of Christ should have universally and unequivocally condemned the evils that were being committed in growing numbers throughout Europe and beyond, the world was left with was weak speech, or even inauthentic speech. If Camus expects anything of Christians, it is for them to speak out loudly and unequivocally, leaving no room for doubt in the hearts of those who hear them speak.
So, we are starting to build a picture of what good Christian engagement with the world looks like for Camus, an unbeliever. He wants authentic, direct, and unequivocal dialogue. Christians should get away from abstraction and fighting about things that have little, if any, impact on the good of the world. Rather, Christians should face the blood-stained face that history currently has taken on, address it fully, and show the world how Christianity can help overcome this blood-stained face of history through the blood-stained cross of Jesus Christ in history.
When a Spanish Catholic bishop blesses political executions, he ceases to be a bishop, or even a Christian.6 There are, sadly, too many contemporary illustrations of just this (and far too few who are willing to engage in this authentic dialogue that Camus speaks of regarding these contemporary illustrations.) Such a bishop, and many "christians" today, are simply a "dog with an ideology".7 And a dog that doesn't even have to get its paws dirty in the executing of another.
We must strive to be men, not dogs. We must be authentic men, not dogs doused in ideology, barking incessantly until we rip each other to shreds. We are well on our way to experience the sacrifice of Socrates repeated several times.8 The future is either dialogue or execution. The first to be executed are those who have engaged in authentic dialogue. Many Christians will live, and Christianity will die.
Camus, Albert. O’Brien, Justin, trans. “The Unbeliever and Christians”, 52. In Resistance, Rebellion, Death, 51–56. New York: Random House, 1963.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Id. at 53.
Ibid.
Id. at 54.
Ibid.
Id. at 55.