Albert Camus and the Minister

by Howard E. Mumma

In a series of unusual conversations, the great French existentialist and the author, a pastor, share their inviduatl thoughts on topics ranging from Adam and Eve to free will and the Holocaust, as they examine key questions about Christianity and human faith. Original.

Genres: Philosophy, Biography, Religion, Memoir

2 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2000

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

DID CAMUS REQUEST TO BE BAPTIZED, IN THE YEAR BEFORE HIS DEATH?

Author (and Methodist minister) Albert Mumma wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book about writer Albert Camus (1913-1960), “I will describe the dialogues I had with two gifted writers---Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Both writers rejected the very existence of God, much less the idea of a loving, caring God. I was put to the test in an attempt to bring each of them to a better understanding of the divine nature of God… Camus was much more of a soul searcher, looking for meaning beyond himself… By contrast, Sartre was more the dogmatist… In my mind, it seems as if it were only last year that I talked to them. But, while the intensity of the experience endures, my memory of the exact words does not, nor can I vouch for perfect translation from French.. these conversations were neither recorded not transcribed, although I did make a few notes after each meeting… I hope my transgressions in exact wording used to not intrude upon the spirit of our conversations.” (Pg. xiii-xiv)

He explains in the ‘Author’s Note’ section, “It’s fair to ask why I waited so long to publish this account of my conversations with Camus---and if, after so many years, the account could be accurate. I want to make it clear that I did not have conversations with Albert Camus on a regular basis; our conversations were irregular and occasional, spanning several years… During our second or third meeting, Camus asked if I might agree that our visits would be kept confidential---that no records or dates of our meetings be kept. ‘After all,’ he said, ‘You are a priest!’ I smiled and quickly agreed… but now, at the age of ninety-one---and with Camus forty years dead---I am confident that the benefits of sharing his story far outweigh the betrayal of confidence. Fortunately, after each of my conversations with Camus, I returned home and made copious notes. It is from these notes and my memory that I have reconstructed our conversations. This does not mean that the report is verbatim. I am guilty of putting a few words into my acquaintance’s mouth---and, for that matter, my own---to better capture the essence of our sessions. On the other hand, I am not trying to sugarcoat my shortcomings. It is plain to me, that despite how hard I tried, I failed Camus, and the consequences were tragic.”

Mumma recounts that Camus visited the church that Mumma was preaching at, and requested that they meet for dinner; after this meal, Camus (reportedly) said, “I came to the American Church for two reasons. First, to hear Marcel Dupré, whom I have listened to many times at Notre Dame. Second, because I am searching for something I do not have, something I’m not sure I can even define.” (Pg. 9)

Camus told him, “For a long time, I believed that the universe itself was a source of meaning, but now I have lost confidence in its rationality… My basic philosophy is that we human beings have been thrust into existence with neither knowledge of our origin not help for the future. We have questions about our meaning and purpose that the universe cannot answer… to lose the meaning of life, to see our reasoning disappear, is unbearable. It is impossible to live a life without meaning.” (Pg. 12-14)

During a later meeting, “Camus threw up his arms and said, ‘Howard, do you remember what Augustine said: ‘Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless till them find their rest in thee’?’ His face lit up dramatically… I said to myself, here is a man who is on the road to becoming a Christian. Here was a key moment, a turning point in this man’s life.” (Pg. 26)

On another occasion, Camus asked him, “'Do you take everything in the Bible seriously?’ ‘The Bible is not a work of science… It is no longer possible to accept as literal truth every statement the Bible makes. Without doubt, numbers of historical mistakes have bene discovered… Still, it is wrong to argue that because of some mistakes, the entire Bible should be ignored…’ ‘I am hearing something new here, and I like this line of reasoning,’ Albert said.” (Pg. 31-32)

Later, Camus told him, “When I first met Jean-Paul Sartre, I agreed we should leave God out of the discussion, although I have always left open the possibility of something higher than man. To me, it was simply nothing we could ever know definitely, so at the very least we must live as if we are alone.” (Pg. 61-62)

Mumma compares Sartre and Camus: “Sartre… lacked Camus’ sense of modesty… Sartre thought that he had found his answers; Camus had not, and perhaps he never would. For Camus, the mystery of life was a constant struggle, a continuous fight find truth, forever elusive, yet always calling for him to try once more.” (Pg. 63)

Mumma states that “toward the end of my summer in Paris… Camus [asked], ‘Howard, do you perform baptisms?’ … I thought I was going to fall off my chair---the great Camus asking about baptisms. ‘Yes, Albert, I do.’ … ‘Why, what is the significance of this rite?’ … ‘Baptism is not necessarily a supernatural experience,’ I began. ‘…. Baptism is a symbolic commitment to God…’ … [Camus said] ‘The reason I have been coming to church is because I am seeking. I’m almost on a pilgrimage---seeking something to fill the void that I am experiencing---and no one else knows.’” (Pg. 85-86)

Mumma continues, “Albert looked me squarely in the eye and with tears in his eyes, said, ‘Howard, I am ready. I want this. This is what I want to commit my life to.’ … I had a difficult time maintaining my composure… Yet for some reason, I was unable to commit myself fully to the idea. ‘But Albert… haven’t you already been baptized?’ ‘Yes… when I was a child… but it meant nothing to me… But it seems right that I should be baptized now that I have spent these months reading and discussing the Bible with you’… So on one hand, I wanted to deny his request for baptism on the grounds that it wasn’t necessary. On the other hand, I also sensed that Albert needed the experience. My compromise was to bring up the matter of joining a church and experiencing the rite of confirmation. That proved to be a mistake. Right away, he jumped on me and said, ‘Howard, I am not ready to be a member of a church!... When I come to your church… I leave before the service is over to get away from them all.’” (Pg. 89-91) Mumma continues, “Perhaps you are not quite ready… Let’s wait while you continue your studies.” (Pg. 93)

Camus drove Mumma to the airport: “Then he said, as if he knew what I was thinking about, ‘My friend… I am going to keep striving for the Faith!’ As he said this, I wondered if I should have done as he asked, baptized and confirmed him. He was very close; I was becoming certain. Given a little more study, he would be ready, possibly even by next summer.” (Pg. 95)

He summarizes, “I wondered again if I had made a mistake in not honoring his request. It seemed the right decision at the time, but had I realized that it would be my last chance to rebaptize him as he wanted, I might have decided differently. I was not sure what bothered me… God had set aside a special place for him, I was sure. Camus was truly a decent, caring man and through all his writings and struggles with faith and philosophy, at his core was a genuine caring for the station of his fellow man.” (Pg. 96)

I frankly am rather skeptical about Mumma’s claims in this book. (No other biographer of Camus seems to support Mumma’s relationship with him. Plus, Mumma’s waiting until he was 91 years old and Camus had been dead for some forty years to “reveal” these conversations, is suspicious.) Still, this is a highly interesting account, that will be of keen interest to some studying the life and ideas of Camus.

[Timothyemmalee · Rating 3 out of 5]

What an odd book! The first half-ish relates to the title, but the rest is a set of autobiographical sketches. I've been a fan of Camus for decades, and I'd heard rumors here and there about a late in life conversion or at least near conversion. But the book is . . . I'm not sure, but something's off. It's like a literary uncanny valley. The author gets some facts wrong, and there are some oddities. For instance, he has Camus telling him that a typewriter repair guy told him that the "I" was the most commonly broke key, but that doesn't quite fly for a conversation between Camus and a fellow Frenchman. Yet, there are enough other oddities that make it seem plausible. Why would the author blame himself for Camus's "suicide"?

It reads almost like a Platonic dialogue, and I wonder if that's what this is: a semi-fictionalized account of some real conversations that have been idealized to reflect how such an extended interaction "should" have gone.

[Eric Targe · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a Christian minister and one who has enjoyed reading the works of Camus, I was interested to see how a Christian minister was able to develop a relationship with this existential atheist. The book promised a surprise of faith by Camus, but in actuality only demonstrated the minister’s lack of faith in the foundations of Christianity thus making it more palatable to Camus. This was incredibly disappointing.

[Stratkey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure what to make of this book. Having read The Fall many times, I can plausibly imagine Camus having these thoughts and this friendship, but who knows? One can hope it was true. Lord have mercy.

[Gonz Navarro · Rating 1 out of 5]

After all i’ve read about Camus, this book just doesn’t feel right.

[Alberto Herrera · Rating 1 out of 5]

Un libro que se inventa una historia y miente deliberadamente. Recomiendo que se alejen de él si lo buscan es saber de la vida de Albert Camus.

[The Spiritus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seems like an ass pull used to discredit Camus' philosophy.

[Eric Berg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Easily the worst book on Camus, ever. His facts are a total mess, his own narrative doesn’t hang together. I don’t believe a single typed word. Epic fail

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

I honestly don't know what to make of this book. While it troubles me that Mumma could have written this and either completely made up his encounters with Camus or vastly exaggerated their scope and content, it troubles me even more that I can't find any discussion about proving or disproving his claims. I see that it's also troubled some other readers, but I wish I could find some scholarship, some historical digging somewhere. Did no one even give this book the time of day when it came out?

Now I can accept that, going off of a 90-year old's memory, it's not verbatim. I can also accept that the author would have wanted to clearly express his own thoughts so gives himself lengthy passages to do so. I can even accept that Camus could have considered the tenets of Christianity thoughtfully, as any great thinker must, and that in a French-English conversation there may have been some difficulty in translation, understanding, and even simplicity of speech. I can grant this guy an awful lot, but I still just don't feel convinced.

Certainly, if he did have these conversations and meetings someone could have provided some sort of proof...a photograph, a note in Camus' possession, or family & acquaintances of either that could confirm the relationship happened? Maybe he would have reached out to correspond with Camus' family after his death? I sure would have liked to see something like this in the book, some validation from another source. Because taken as it is, this is really just some guy talking about what it would be like to talk to Camus. It reads like a Socratic dialogue where Mumma works out his own arguments on the problem of evil and builds bridges to existentialism.

But anyway, if this man is who he says he is and did what he says he did (the internet is pretty much silent on this point), then he had some incredible experiences...post-war Europe, behind the Iron Curtain, a plane struck by lightning, etc. I would much rather have read the autobiography of this man (with some editing assistance, for sure) and found that along the way he also encountered Camus! That would have somehow seemed more credible, but the way this book is set up is that they put Camus forward (I imagine because that's what would sell, not a no-name Methodist parish minister's life story) and then backtrack to his other memoirs.

Strange little book.

[H]

He raised his eyes again until they met mine. "To lose one's life is only a little thing. But, to lose the meaning of life, to see your reasoning disappear, is unbearable. It is impossible to live a life without meaning." (14)

"For example, there are many statements in Genesis that stretch credulity. These have to be checked very carefully. But, as we discussed ith the story of Adam and Eve, Genesis can also tell us something about human nature--there is good and evil in all of us."
"This is what I strive for in my stories," Camus said, nodding. "The objective is to illuminate some higher truth, even if the story itself is a fiction." (33)

'The sole basis of ethics is the fact of freedom. THerefore, whatever assists the growth of freedom is moral and whatever hinders the growth of freedom is immoral.' 'Freedom,' I have come to learn, is the key word to understanding Sartre. (57)
'Although they have no authoritative guide, they must still choose and at the same time ask if they would be willing for others to choose the same action. The act of choice, then, is one that all men must make with a deep sense of anguish--'anguish' [sic] was another key word for Sartre--'for in this one act men are responsible not only for themselves but for each other.' (58)

"The fact that God cannot accomplish that which is self-contradictory does not in any way contradict the notion that he is also all powerful and ale to accomplish his will. This is a significant insight. It represents the central tradition of Christian philosophy as stated by Thomas Aquinas: 'Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.'
"It has long been believed that God is limited by the laws of logic. If it is nonsense to make triangles in which the sum of their interior angles is greater than 180 degrees, it is equally nonsensical to expect God to create beings without the dangers inherent in their createdness. Even God cannot create an interdependent community of persons without also producing a situation in which evil spreads. In other words, God cannot create an independent thing and still have complete control over it or limit it. For example, we cannot have water that quenches our (74) thirst but does not drown people. It is impossible to have fire that will warm our homes but not scorch our flesh. Nor is it possible for God to create minds that are free, yet not capable of evil." (76)

"It is my contention that since we live in a world that is both good and evil, the world in which we live is not already made but is in the process of being made." (75)

"For us to truly live we must not withdraw from the struggle against all that is wrong in the world. We must rejoice in being co-creator with God in the advance toward his kingdom of love and peace on earth and goodwill toward men." (77)

To me, this was the startling truth underlying Camus' philosophy: Despite it all, Camus was an optimist about the condition of man. He believed that while life is absurd it is also precious. (79)
But through it all, Camus said, "I am optimistic about man." He was pessimistic about human destiny but optimistic about man. (81)

"To me this is all there is--simply going on living. The only hope that I can offer is simply to live. Repetition, grilling each day with the pure act of living. Starting over again until death, that is all there is. Yet, Howard, I sense deep within that something is missing. Is there more?" (82)

"On the contrary, Christianity is the measure of our whole being, and, as such, it is a process that consumes a lifetime. In practical terms, this means that no matter how despairing, how ugly, how foreboding, how disparaging, how tragic, or how devastating the conduct of mankind proves to be, Christians never lose hope. THis is because 'Christ died to make men holy, we must live to make men free.' " (83)

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

For several months this book has sat on my nightstand untouched. Finally, with much trepidation, I finally started reading it the other night.

The title of the first half confirmed by fears.

The Wearied Existentialist.

Mumma, an Ohio minister served as a guest preacher at the American Church in Paris in the 1950s. During this time, he supposedly began a friendship with Albert Camus. The first chapters strain credibility as Mumma describes his initial meetings with Camus. For example, Mumma would have us think that Camus, in his late thirties, hit a turning point in his life when Mumma described the story of the Garden of Eden after their second meeting. Mumma's words:

His face lit up dramatically. Camus was excited by my explanation of man's being cast out from the garden- which related to his own interest in man's estrangement. I said to myself, here is a man who is on the road to becoming a Christian. Here was a key moment, a turning point in this man's life. I could tell by the light in his eyes, the expression of his face, that Camus was experiencing something new in his life pg. 26

We are supposed to believe that Camus, who by 1950, had obtained a degree in philosophy, was a former journalist for the French Resistance, a playwright, author of The Stranger, The Plague and The Myth of Sisyphus (among other works), and most telling Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonsim was unaware and awed by one of the most basic and well known childhood biblical stories?

Such claims cannot even be excused as merely poor memory nor language problems between the French speaking Camus and the English speaking Mumma. It also does not help that the supposedly naive Camus asks the most basic one sentence questions regarding faith that permit Mumma to provide two page sermons explaining the meaning of life and religion.

Later chapters find a voice for Camus that resonates slightly more faithfully for those familiar with his writings. But all is suspect in light of Mumma's Christian perspective (at one's most innocuous reading) or Christian agenda (at one's most accusatory). The final chapters have Camus, having reached a depth of despair for lack of faith, nearly allowing himself to be baptized. Mumma then speaks of his sense of failure at not preventing the death of Camus which he deemed "obviously suicide" pg. 98. However, Camus died in a car accident in which he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his friend and publisher, Michel Gallimard. Such factually faulty insights into Camus' character cannot be dismissed kindly.

The second half of the book contains Mumma's personal letters regarding other matters. However, at that point, I was so disgusted I just skimmed through them.

In the Introduction, Mumma writes:

During our second or third meeting, Camus asked if I might agree that our visits would be kept confidential- that no records or dates of our meetings be kept. "After all," he said, "You are a priest!" I smile and quickly agreed.

Ministers aren't generally known for reneging on promises, but now, at the age of ninety-one--and with Camus forty years dead--I am confident that the benefits of sharing his story far outweigh the betrayal of confidence.

If the betrayal of confidence was not bad enough, the betrayal of intellectual integrity is.

[Jared · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't know what to make of this text. Mumma is a Methodist minister from Ohio that incidentally taught some sermons at a church (the American Church) in Paris on days that coincided with Marcel Dupré playing the organ. Albert Camus visited to listen to Dupré, and apparently was so impressed by the sermons given by Mumma that he organized several lunch dates with him to discuss everything about the Bible and faith. Mumma admits to embellishing some of Camus's words, but clarifies that "the report is [not] verbatim. I am guilty of putting a few words into my acquaintance's mouth--and, for that matter, my own--to better capture the essence of our sessions" (4). I suppose the question is how well did Mumma "capture the essence"? Perplexingly counterintuitive to one of existentialism's chief claims (existence precedes essence), I am bewildered by how simple Camus's speech is in this text. In the conversations between philosopher and minister, Mumma clearly has the more floral conversation. In addition, Camus practically agrees with everything Mumma has to say. I struggle to believe that their conversations were that simple. In fact, I struggle to believe that they happened at all.

One thing that can be said for certain is that Mumma finds a corollary between Christian belief and Camus's notion of the absurd. The very fact that Camus insists on living in spite of life's absurdity (its pointlessness, its insignificance), implies that there is something worth living for. While Camus would posit that something in the fact that life is precious in and of itself (i.e. it is worth living because it is all that we have), Mumma confirms that life should be lived in a moral, ethical way because A) God has commanded it and B) there is a reward for it in the hereafter. I think that the vital philosophies diverge paths, especially in the form of living. For Camus, life should be lived passionately as if every moment were one's last (examples include don Juan, an actor, and the conqueror. All are passionate, but not necessarily good, beings). For Mumma, life should be lived humbly, meekly, and Christ-like. There is very little self-interested passion involved in Mumma's formula--all people are commanded to be good, frequently at the sacrifice of one's passions.

"It seems to me," Camus said when I had finished, "that you and I are not so very different."
"Why do you say that?"
"Because, in the face of despair, we have both found reason to hope. We both, above all, value life." (84)

[J. Alfred · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've always been impressed by and had respect for Camus, who, in his novels, stares into hell and has the decency to scream. After reading this book (less than the first half of which actually deals with Camus) these remain my sentiments. I learned little from Mumma's recollections of their talks, these mostly being stylized Platonic-style dialogues which function as an opportunity to show how unanswerable Mumma himself is in argument. Perhaps this is unfair, but one gets the feeling that he is pretty satisfied with himself, and his theology parts company with historical orthodoxy in a number of ways. I sympathize far more with Camus than the Minister.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half is the best half because it is about the conversations the author had with Camus. Though the second half wasn't nearly as good there are some good stories or moments either way. The book though overall is worth the conversation between Howard Mumma and Camus.

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

If he cannot get the particulars of Camus death right - and uses the misstatement to advance a dramatic end - how much faith can I have in the accuracy of at least adequacy of his recollections 50 years back?

Supremely disappointing, primarily because of its immense promise.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

The little chapter about Camus is entertaining, but questionable, especially given the context of the rest of the book.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted more Camus! Interesting dialogue between a Methodist minister and existentialist Albert Camus. Sartre even shows up!
Half of the book had interesting short stories on Mumma's life.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by an American minister about his relationship with Camus. I found it an worthwhile read as it shows a side of Camus I haven't seen portrayed elsewhere.

[Kyria · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too little, too late. It has, if any, the merit of the implied unconscious self-censorship nonetheless.

[Jonathan]

Rebind

[Katrinka · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unforgivable, in so many ways.