Part # 1 The Meaning of Christian Faith -An essay in the form of a letter to a friend Ernie: Things are not what they seem. This, of course, is a central teaching of Buddhism. It is also important in Biblical religion -both Christian faith and even moreso Judaism- and in some schools of Hinduism. In these faiths this truth is a warning, you need o be on your guard against false appearances. The idea is also found in Islam where, however, the idea is presented as a strategy to defeat non-Muslims through deception. The prime example of "things are not what they seem" in Biblical faith, is, needless to say, found in the Book of Job. Related insights can be seen in Ecclesiastes and Revelation, but let us focus on Job. For it is in that text that we get a complete reversal of fortune on the part of the hero of he story, he looks like the world's worst loser, people presume that he has no future, he appears to be forsaken by God. But, obviously, that is not what his story is all about. What is important in it is what you don't see until the end. I bring this up because of the terrible fate that has befallen my dear friend Evangeline. Her story is tragic and deserves something like the kind of narrative you find in Job. She does not remotely merit the kind of misfortune she now must face -loss of about three-fourths of everything because of a legal settlement, something caused by her husband's sex with an adopted daughter more than a decade ago -which Evangeline had no knowledge of but which her daughter's lawyer exploited "as if" such allegations were true. After weeks of fighting, Evangeline simply gave up. She had no stomach for legal combat just as she has no stomach for any other kind of combat. And so, she was fleeced horribly. Evangeline, for me, is and always will be the equivalent of a saint. She is that devoted to Christ and to doing what is good and right. At the basis of her faith is what can be called "love of Jesus." In fact I cannot think of any other way to characterize what and who she is. She is another St. Francis except that her gender is female. All of which may sound exaggerated. To which all I can say is that it has been my great privilege to have gotten to know her, to be able to call her my friend, and simply to say that if you ever were able to meet her and be around her for at least a short time, there isn't any question in my mind that you would agree with this view of the woman.. She is simply remarkable, as I see it, the best possible model of what a Christian should be. . And now this -extreme punishment for crimes she did not commit -and, to make it all worse, her prayerful forgiveness of her sorrowful and contrite husband of three decades has become unforgivable on the part of nearly all of the dozen children she raised, four her own, eight interracial and adopted. . What is wrong with this picture? . There is something wrong and what that is explains why I am writing to you. Unfortunately, as per usual, you won't read this letter except perfunctorily. After all, you are a busy man. But others will read it and wonder and maybe then you will finally take the time to see what it actually says. This is not said in any disparagement of how busy you are. What I know of your life elicits admiration for who and what you are. You are seeking the best for your family and some things you must do, to provide for them. As well,
I also know something about your charitable giving to Christian missions. Hence, criticism of your being "busy" is made on the basis of respect, not something else. Regardless..... I write believing that I am giving you material that is a more-or-less equivalent of someone like Nabokov writing to me, no matter how long, which would be priceless and valuable, not to be overlooked. I have that kind of faith in myself. You read it as if, from my perspective, you were getting an unwelcome missive from Donald Trump and as a busy man you don't have time for that sort of verbage. Everything here goes to the heart of your beliefs, and, of course, not only your's but the beliefs of many millions of other Christians. As much as I also identify with the same faith there definitely is something wrong and it really needs to be talked about. That is, everything said here should have intrinsic value. Reading it should be valuable to you. Even if you think otherwise. At least no-one can say I did not give it my best effort. Your recent brief e-mail comment about China also fits into the topic. When you said that what it all comes down to is the fact many millions of Chinese people are turning to Christ. Which is a statement of faith but at the same time a statement of presumed fact. So I did some digging; as a statement with a truth claim in it, how true is it? Very true but also misleading. There is a helluva lot more to the question than your answer assumes. And this ties into the issue of Christ-centered faith. There is a question for myself to think about -which just might have some interest to you because of what my identification as a Christian could mean for you, not so much in the here-and-now but down the road. Which returns us to Job. His friends could only see him as he had become in their here-and-now. They were clueless about how the story would end. They guessed wrong. Are you guessing wrong also? I rather think you are. ----- What does faith in Christ actually mean? For many Christians, and certainly Evangeline among them, there is only one possible answer. "Of course" it means personal commitment, it means a "relationship" with Jesus, it means a life based on renewal, it means above all a very selective interpretation of the Bible emphasizing what may be characterized as a "gentle Jesus meek and mild" view of Christ. Others have called it a "feminized Jesus," that word taken in a Victorian-era sense. But it may best be thought of as roughly half of Jesus, all other dimensions of him deliberately ignored. This has deep meaning for me inasmuch as since February I have recommitted myself to Christian faith. But now I have reawakened to the fact that the same old problems within Christian faith that made me unhappy years ago have not gone away and still rule the roost in the Church. It is necessary to give fresh thought to what it means to be a Christian. It cannot, for me, mean what it does to most believers. Evangeline, in an important sense, is the great exception to the rule that the same problems still prevail in the Church. But, alas, her life has become a world class tragedy, she simply cannot spend much time talking with me, not under present circumstances. But speaking of everyone else what is most notable, as I see things, is the profound indifference. It is palpable, as solid as a rock, undeniable. There is no interest. I may as well have told people that I had become a philatelist. Well, now, what should I make of that? I understand very well what time constraints are all about. But I also understand that there may be good ways to overcome that kind of problem. However, there has to be an interest in order for alternatives to even be considered. And there simply isn't any interest. And I have noticed. To try and deal with this fact let me return to the story of China for a moment. Can all of Chinese Christianity be reduced to an observation to the effect that more and more Chinese are turning to Jesus? There are two answers to that question. Since most new Christians in China can be thought of as within the Pentecostal orbit maybe the statement is more-or-less true. But this leaves out a significant Catholic presence and, as well, it ignores a lot of "other" Christians, including those who belong to sects that have analogs in terms of, say, the Mormons or local versions of something like Patrick Henry College and its political version of faith. The difference in outlook is between a believer who is Pentecostal or (very similar) Charismatic, and someone who whatever part sincere faith has in everything, demands a strong sense of objectivity. It is the difference between saying that "my view of faith" is strong in China and growing, vs. a fact-based description of the spectrum of faith in China and how it all fits together -or where the fault lines and differences can be found. Personally I find the first outlook simply subjective, whatever value such subjectivity may have, and the other to be what is actually useful and worth knowing. This brings up the issue of heroes of faith. Thomas a Kempis wrote a book half a millennium ago called The Imitation of Christ. His concept was derived from St. Augustine who, in turn derived his views from leaders in the early Church and from the first generations of Christian believers whom he knew about. The idea is simplicity itself: We should, as much as possible, strive to be like Jesus in word and deed and spirit in all our lives. The trouble is twofold: First, I profoundly disagree and second, I also agree strongly, but exactly what was Jesus like? After all, the picture of him in the New Testament is both complex and very incomplete. We get an edited Jesus, in other words, and in any case, how can you or I be like a "divine being" on Earth? About which, sure I admire, say, Albert Einstein, but I have very little aptitude for physics and hardly any interest in higher math. Do I think he was a great man? Of course, many times over. He changed the course of history. But it would be pointless to try and imitate him; I would be a dismal failure at it. And would Einstein think that everyone should seek to follow in his footsteps? It would seem to be safe to say that he would laugh at the idea. Think of other outstanding people of his time. Should Ted Williams have given up baseball to try and become a theoretical physicist? Should Harry Truman have given up politics to try and learn differential equations or advanced calculus? The point is that we need to be true to our nature, whatever that may be. And our nature does not include being divine. Another point is that to the extent we should try and imitate Jesus it is essential that we know what we are talking about. Some truths that Jesus taught or exemplified are universal, meant for all humanity, intrinsically good, in everyone's best interests. However, contrary to simplistic constructions of Jesus' life offered to us by many true believers, -Jesus as all-loving pacifist- what the Bible tells us about his life is far more complex and multi-dimensional than that. Indeed, to arrive at their simplistic and always peaceful Jesus, true believers have to falsify the New Testament account in many ways. They need to ignore the physical violence he used to throw the money changers out of the temple, ignore the fact that at least some of his disciples were armed at his own urging, ignore the fact that he befriended an unknown number of Roman soldiers, and ignore the fact that he threatened ( I think justifiably) sinners with eternal torment in Hell -as passages in the Sermon on the Mount make clear. In short the "Christ of faith" depends upon your understanding of the "Jesus of history." And about that, Evangelicals could care less, assuming as they do that the portrait of Christ presented in the Gospels is all you need to know -as if there were no inconsistencies in the gospel accounts and as if there weren't all kinds of lacunae in the stories. And I cannot live with such a naive view of history and such disdain for historical facts. Moreover, Jesus was complex in more ways than his views of war and peace. I also agree in principle with John Dominic Crossan that the thrust of Jesus' social ministry consisted of non-violent resistance, but it was overt resistance and it was well organized. Which the Gospels also tell us. And certainly this seems what best explains the beginnings of Jesus' ministry. But more to the point, he was nothing at all like the views that many Evangelicals and other believers would have it, that he was essentially an observant conservative Jew even if he had a new message from God. His Jewishness was Galilean and heterodox, and he repeatedly said that his mission was to all men and women of good will, not only to the people of Judea. I don't think this makes him as ecumenical as Augustus (sometimes was) but it certainly does not make him into a first century AD version of a (so-called) "fundamentalist" preacher from America's 'Bible belt.' Nor was Jesus a male equivalent of mother Theresa, spending 100% of his time ministering to the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate. Sure, he spent some of his time that way, but mostly he was an activist seeking to replace Roman rule with that of the Kingdom of Heaven. He can also be thought of as a sage, related to but different than the wandering "Cynic" philosophers -the Cynics having nothing at all to do with modern era "cynicism" and a lot to do with the kinds of things we know about Socrates. This point can be (and has been) pushed way too far by some scholars but a case can be made that there is at least some resemblance to Greek thinkers. And, of course, Galilee as Jesus knew it, was part of a cultural mileau that included the Decapolis, ten Greek cities not all that far from Nazareth. It also included Sepphoris, a mixed Hellenistic-Jewish city, which was a fairly short walk from Nazareth. One gospel, Matthew, despite the fact that it emphasizes Jewish themes throughout, nonetheless makes special effort to connect Christ in some way to Persia, Assyria, and Egypt, that is, to Zoroastrianism, Ishtar religion, and faith in the Goddess Isis. Actually if you have the necessary scholarly background you can find similar connections in the Gospel of John also, but let us focus on Matthew 2: 1 and 12: 41-42. First we find the familiar passage about the Magi, sometimes called "wise men" from the East. This is in reference to Zoroastrian priests or, anyway, some kind of Persian religious figures, not necessarily part of the official Zoroastrian religion, possibly connected to the religion of the Medes which was a precursor faith. Secondly there are two references in chapter 12, to the "men" (people) of Assyria, who certainly were not Jews and who historically were Ishtar devotees, and a reference to the "Queen of the South." If you take this phrase at its surface meaning it discusses the Queen of Sheba, who also was not Jewish, her religion not well understood at this time, the archaeological record for Yemen (Sheba) is among the most sketchy anywhere in the world, but it certainly was related to Assyrian religion or non-Jewish religion of the mid East more generally. But the phrase Queen of the South also was a well known euphemism for the Goddess Isis of Egypt and, by extension, for the Ptolemaic dynasty, only recently overthrown by the Romans. Which of course you would never know if you never studied the history of religions of the ancient world. And Evangelicals seldom do any such thing, which is one price to pay for insistence that the only way to read the Bible is in terms of other passages in the Bible, no outside objective information needed, thank you. The verses in Matthew are not isolated passages -although even if they were they would have real importance. Which is not even to discuss the many examples of symbolism in the Book of Revelation. There are verses in Acts, even in some of Paul's letters, -like II Thessalonians- which also bring up non-Jewish religious ideas in some positive way. This does not say that the New Testament is "really" a disguised New Age text that means something altogether different than what it actually says. Nor is this some kind of testimony on behalf of a religious outlook that I personally think was mentally challenged, most varieties of Gnosticism. What it does say, however, was that earliest Christian faith was not the closed system it became later in which the only intelligible historic references are European or Judean. But don't look to Evangelicals for confirmation of this idea. The concept is alien to them and they have no interest at in learning anything outside of normative traditions they already are familiar with. This statement is unfair to some Evangelicals, of course. It is a generalization and like any generalization there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. But if you spend any time at all with Evangelicals and this is an interest of yours you know that the generalization stands. To find Christians with some degree of interest in expanding their historical base of knowledge you need to look to modernists, to the Religious Left. Which is to say that you would need to be satisfied to turn to "Christians" who no longer believe in Christ except as a marker for their identity. Another generalization with its own exceptions which is also true is that these ersatz Christians are Bible illiterates. They are totally clueless about the contents of the Holy Book. For them the Judeo-Christian scriptures reduce to a few stories about Christmas and Easter and miscellaneous platitudes picked for them by Left-wing pastors to serve Left-wing social interests. Its a simple as that. All of this said, there still is some sense in which we do need to try and "imitate" Christ. That sense is morally. Which, I think, is an unarguable view. Jesus set the standard for moral behavior. According to Christian theology we all should strive to live up to Christ's example. Also according to Christian theology, no-one can possibly be perfect at this, indeed, we all will fall miserably short, but the point is that we should try. And keep trying for as long as we live. . However, while there are various areas of Jesus' life that are easy enough to follow from the Gospel accounts, including views he had that all Right-wing and Left-wing believers habitually misconstrue, there also are areas where not enough is told us in the New Testament to really be sure. In each case, Left, Right, and Uncertain, modern myths fill the vacuum. These myths are believed-in fervently because they excuse people's ignorance. . Here is one example, the false "fact" that Jesus was silent on the issue of homosexuality. While this myth is regarded as unarguably true on the Left even some Evangelicals accept it as bona fide. In either case, belief in this myth merely demonstrates unfamiliarity with the Bible. For Jesus explicitly condemns homosexuality -sodomy- in Matthew 11: 20-24 To refresh your memory, here are the exact words; this is from the New English Bible translation: " THEN HE SPOKE of the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, and denounced them for their impenitence. 'Alas for you, Chorazin!' he said; 'alas for you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sack-cloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable, I tell you, for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgement than for you. And as for you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to the skies? No, brought down to the depths! For if the miracles had been performed in Sodom which were performed in you, Sodom would be standing to this day. But it will be more bearable, I tell you, for the land of Sodom on the day of judgement than for you.' " There isn't the least question that popular use of the word "Sodom" or derivatives like "sodomy" referred to homosexuality in the era the gospels were written. Philo repeatedly uses Sodom / sodomy in this sense and, of course, it is unmistakable in the New Testament, especially so in the writings of Paul. The only question concerns the meaning of such terms at the time that Genesis was written, which is where the story of Sodom and Gomorrah originates -unless a recently discovered text from Jordan somehow connected to the Barlaam pericope, clearly non-Jewish in character, is a better candidate for the original idea This refers to the "Deir 'Alla Inscription" -which really needs to be investigated in published scholarly print material since online studies that I know about are very substandard. In any case, there is a possibility that in another tradition the Goddess Ishtar, or a surrogate, was believed to have caused the destruction of Sodom. As for the Bible itself, you would think that the Sodom pericope was self evident in its meaning. But not to Leftists. For them, since they espouse a new ideology of homosexual acceptance, even ancient texts must be reinterpreted to agree with views that only date to Harry Hay and his efforts in the 1950s. This ideology has now penetrated throughout America's elite class to the effect that homosexuals can do no wrong, and even to criticize homosexuals is an affront to human decency -which is a 180 degree reversal of just about all religious traditions on the issue. Therefore the traditions must be changed -falsified- to reflect homosexual interests. Sometimes the truth about what is going on is so blatant that it can't possibly be missed even if, despite how blatant everything is, it is missed anyway. For one example of this we can refer to a lecture given by Christine Hayes as part of her class at Yale on the history of Biblical religion. Specifically this refers to lecture #2, "The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting." It is accessible via a YouTube video, online. In some ways, Christine Hayes' views on the subject are very much like my own. She respects and makes good use of some of the best contemporary scholarship; her approach to the Bible is historical more than anything else because, as we both believe, a strictly devotional interpretation of the book necessarily misses most of its actual meaning. And there is so much to learn. . For an "adventure of ideas" you simply cannot do better than to try and unravel the meaning of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. There are endless discoveries to make when the Bible is looked at as anything but a closed canon of texts and instead is seen for what it is, the best extant example of ancient literature but still one example out of many, all of which are mutually interdependent, some advancing truths not found in others, but in all cases sharing a large number of truths -and not a few misconceptions and mistakes. So far, so good. . However, as objective as Christine Hayes tries to be, she, like most academics, has been infected by Left-wing disease. This illness has the unfortunate effect of turning truths intro falsehoods and falsehoods into its version of truths. And since academics, like everyone else, want to be accepted by others in their profession as peers, they are willing to play games with the historical record even when it means that one "believes in" the preposterous. . It must be said that there also is such a thing as Right-wing disease and its symptoms are similar -such as disbelief in the findings of hard science, hence belief in myths like a six day Creation or a literal global Great Flood, but these are such easy targets for criticism that hopefully you will excuse me for saying just about nothing on such subjects. It accomplished nothing to win arguments with children and pretty much the same thing applies when discussing the Religious Right. On these subjects Evangelicals are often hopelessly naive. But the point needs emphasis that the Religious Left isn't much better and in some ways is even worse. In the case of Christine Hayes, this concerns remarks she made about the ancient city of Sodom as recounted in Genesis 19. She insisted that the problem was unrelated to homosexual behavior; instead the real issue was lack of hospitality and general lawlessness on the part of the mob. About which there is some truth. However, she gave it all away with what she said next, hurriedly, en route to discussion of another topic. This was a case of "gang rape," she said, and that was that. Uhhh, what is male-on-male gang rape but one form of homosexual behavior? However, Christine Hayes's ideology will not permit her to acknowledge the obvious. Left-wing theory cannot admit that homosexuals are often irresponsible, violent, and generally nihilistic. And this outlook ties in with the feminist view that (heterosexual) rape of all kinds is a matter of violence against women and, therefore, sex has nothing to do with it. Which is a conclusion that defies logic but, then, who says the Left is rational or logical? The irrationality of Leftists is different than that of Rightists but it is just as deluded. At any rate, when Jesus condemned Capernaum for its sodomy he was talking about homosexuality -whether or not Leftists like the fact that he was anti-homosexual. Too bad for the Left-wing version of Christ as someone who advocated values entirely consistent with those of the editorial board of the New York Times, but the evidence we have says that such an opinion is utterly false to the facts of history. Just to make sure, there is also a passage that tells us the same thing but in a different context. This is Mark 10: 6 - 9 and says: "... in the beginning, at the creation. God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. It follows that they are no longer two individuals: they are one flesh. What God has joined together, man must not separate.' " Can anything be more clear? The only exception allowed, said elsewhere, is that voluntary celibacy for spiritual purposes may be chosen by some people. Otherwise it applies across the board to everyone -including Jesus' disciples, most of whom were married. And it applies to males who are attracted to other males even though they know that such attraction is a serious defect, indicating major psychological damage. The remedy for such problems is marriage with an opposite sex partner. Which , in any case, is good for each individual involved and is definitely good for society. . If it isn't clear to you that Jesus was a champion of normal heterosexual behavior then either you aren't very bright or your mind has been badly compromised by belief in dysfunctional Left-wing ideology. . Jesus' views are reflected throughout the New Testament, especially in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul who repeatedly condemns sodomy, but also in I Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse. In all, adding up both testaments, there are 30 explicit condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible for which there are no exceptions. This is basic to both Judaism and Christian faith. . To make this totally obvious, homosexuality is absolutely incompatible with either Jewish faith or Christianity. So, if imitation of Christ is a necessary objective, you do not have the option of harboring views like those of most movie stars, most political officials, or most journalists or academics. You won 't "fit in" with people who have become acolytes of today's "opinion leaders." You simply won't. Get used to the idea because that is the price to pay for authentic Christian faith. It is a faith that requires a backbone. It may also require real-life sacrifices of status, time, and well-being. As Soren Kierkegaard knew all too well, Christian faith is not for conformists. When something called "Christianity" becomes conformist that is exactly when it ceases to be Christian faith. You cannot compromise away the Kingdom of Heaven and still have that kingdom in your heart. Who, then, are the best models to have to guide you in a Christian life? There is someone else who I could never live up to but who has been an inspiration from the time I first heard of him in the 1950s. He lived until 1965, much of his time at his hospital in Lambaréné, what was then French Equatorial Africa -now the nation of Gabon. Albert Schweitzer had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952, an era when the prize actually meant something. And he not only gave away copious amounts of medical care to African natives, much of it paid for by himself and his wife, -who, by the way, had Jewish background- much else paid for by donations from Christian people, but he kept his mind alive through his deep interest in philosophy and theology as well as in the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Schweitzer was recognized as one of the greatest interpreters of Bach in his era. He was a well known organist who did much to inspire the revival of organ music and organ building that came about in those years. Schweitzer's playing was recorded on a number of LPs some of which are now available on CD format. As a writer he is best known for his 1906 book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, which has inspired two large scale "quests" by small armies of scholars of religion, but he also wrote The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, published in 1911. This short book is a defense of Jesus against detractors of the time who were arguing that Jesus was psychologically disturbed. Schweitzer regarded that view as completely unjustifiable and set out to use the discipline of psychology as he knew it to demonstrate Christ's complete mental wellness. Schweitzer also wrote Paul and His Interpreters, a 1912 publication of substance, analyzing how various thinkers have viewed the Apostle in the course of history. Schweitzer's fame in philosophy followed from two things, first, the fact that he was a Kant scholar, and second, as a result of his 1923 book, actually a 4 volume opus never completed that was partly published while he was still alive, everything eventually edited into a (thick) one volume version called The Philosophy of Civilization. It is in that book that Schweitzer introduced the concept of "reverence for life," which became his credo from that time onward. However, Schweitzer also wrote Indian Thought and Its Development, published in 1935, in which he examined, in depth, the philosophies of India from the remote past to the 20th century. Most of the book, by far, deals with Hindu philosophies of different kinds, but there are four chapters devoted to Buddhism, including 2 chapters entitled: Buddhism in China, Tibet and Mongolia, and Buddhism in Japan. Schweitzer also wrote an autobiography, Out of My Life and Thought, published in 1933, and still other books not noted here. Exactly how do you do better than that? His life in Africa was incredible by any standards. Not that there weren't problems. Among them was the fact that many of the native people he and his wife -who was a nurse- treated. Theft was endemic and many of the patients believed in a variety of superstitions that complicated the work of the medical staff -hence the need to physically watch patients take their medicines since otherwise they might not take them at all or take too much at one time, African custom was also a factor. Entire families would accompany a patient to the hospital and they needed to be fed and given some kind of shelter. Which Schweitzer was willing to do -at least if those who were healthy contributed to the work of the hospital. Some did, some did some of the time, and some shirked their responsibilities every chance they got. In the first years the word "hospital" was almost a joke. The first building was a small shed that was on the property that had to be remodeled and made fit for any kind of medical use. Hence a good deal of Schweitzer's time had to be spent constructing facilities for medical care. Meanwhile families showed up and camped on the premises giving the place a look of squalor. But there were almost no extra resources to allow a better solution to the problem. WWI intervened and the Schweitzers, as German citizens, became prisoners of war. In that case this was a blessing in disguise. The French treated them reasonably well and the enforced separation from the hospital saved them from even worse exhaustion than had befallen them. After four years of virtually non-stop work the Schweitzers were not only exhausted, their health was in jeopardy. . Finally, in 1918, the Schweitzers were relocated back to Europe and at war's end they returned to Germany. Frau Schweitzer's health had been ruined and Albert's wasn't much better -but he finally recovered and was able to resume something like a normal existence. He was also impoverished, however, and it took years to rebuild something like a remunerative career. With a new source of funds he was able to plan his return to Lambaréné in the jungle. It was during these years after WWI that Schweitzer did most of his scholarly work, writing his best known books. He also gained a reputation as a lecturer and earned money on speaking tours. From that came a network of new friends and, at last, outside help for reconstructing his mission in French Equatorial Africa. The reconstruction took place in stages. His wife stayed in Germany from then on, both for reasons of health and because of their baby daughter. So Albert spent some years at the mission, other years back home in Europe. Lambaréné, as it became, was to consist of 70 medical buildings, not counting housing that was constructed for the visiting families, sometimes several hundred "guests" on the premises at any one time. There were also orchards, created over the course of many years, so that a good part of the food needs of visitors could be met from natural abundance. Schweitzer, in keeping true to his newfound philosophy of reverence for life, also took care of a large assortment of animals who found their way to the hospital, stray dogs and cats mostly, plus an informal aviary. Three pelicans were Albert's "pets," Tristan, Parsifal, and Lohengrin. Volunteers came to Lambaréné from all parts of the world, and by the time the institution had become fully functional in the 1950s, resources materialized from just about everywhere; people wanted to give what they could so that Schweitzer's work could continue. This meant free medical care for about 7000 patients every year although he did ask for contributions, whatever a patient's family could afford, to help defray costs. And so Lambaréné's assets sometimes included live poultry, sacks of grain, and bolts of cloth. During his sojourns back in Europe, Schweitzer met with a wide variety of people you might think he would never associate with, like Bertrand Russell, the noted philosopher and outspoken agnostic. In that case what brought the two men together was the fact that each felt passionately that atomic weapons needed to be limited. But Schweitzer was able to get along with others sometimes regardless of their views -as long as there was some common ground they could agree upon. The hospital mission, for example, was under control of what we might call religious fundamentalists -and they had little use for Schweitzer's critical scholarship and modern philosophy. This problem was resolved by an agreement to the effect that while on hospital grounds Albert would stick to medical treatment only; what he did while he was in Europe was his business. It might also be mentioned that he was a distant relative of Jean Paul Sartre. Albert's cousin, Anne-Marie Schweitzer Sartre, was Jean Paul's mother. Schweitzer and Sartre met on only one occasion, a sort of armed truce, since each knew about the other's views and their two sets of ideas could not possibly have been more different. . This is the story of Albert Schweitzer, a man among men, true in every way to his Christian faith but at the same time someone entirely at home in the world of ideas and himself a philosophical thinker of importance. As he said to his patients at Lambaréné, "thank Jesus who sent the doctor, and seek Christ's guidance for your own life." Yet he not only passively saw the value in the religions of the East, he spent considerable time studying Hinduism and Buddhism and appreciated their contributions to religious thought. He also, like the Apostle Paul -maybe this was his inspiration- was familiar with Greek philosophy and philosophy generally and regarded it as useful to any thinking person. Paul's knowledge of philosophy, in case you aren't aware of this fact, is documented in Acts 17: 16-28. . All of which is overwhelming testimony to the effect that Schweitzer was an heroic figure of the first rank among anyone who has ever lived. His self-chosen motto was: "My Life is My Argument." And that it was. . Not only that, Schweitzer remained active as a medical missionary well into his 80s. No-one could possibly have asked more of him. And with no question at all, he is one of my greatest personal heroes, an inspiration like no other. About whom, however, I can never live up to. Not remotely. Just to think about him is to realize how far I fall short of his example. Yet he is an example and a voice in my conscience. . The question has always been, simply put, can I be at least a little like him? Even that is asking a lot of myself -especially given my admitted flaws. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
