Winston Chruchill, Jesus Christ, and Adolf von Harnack

My good friend, the well-known scientist Sidney Raffel, applies strict research standards in his professional work, but he objects to it in history, if it means debunking heroes. He has given me the April, 2002 issue of The Atlantic, with this blurb on the front cover: "CHURCHILL TAKES A FALL. The revisionist verdict: ruthless, boorish, manipulative, alcoholic, myopic, and wrong about almost everything. But he was right about the thing that mattered most". This should sell the magazine and add resonance to the name of the author, Christopher Hitchens, already well known as a scholarly debunker. He has just published in The Guardian an article belittling the grieving of the English public for the death of the Queen Mother. His long Atlantic article shows wide knowledge of research about Churchill, typical of what goes on in the historical profession. Similar things have been written about Roosevelt, accusing him, falsely I believe, of knowing in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor or of deliberately bringing it on. Simply debunking is not acceptable, but truth demands a balanced presentation, which should emerge out of this confusing debate. This would also do justice to the Cliveden group, who opposed getting involved in the Nazi-Soviet conflict. People do need heroes, but it is not impossible that in Germany and Russia revisionist historians may make heroes of Hitler and Stalin. Back to our history textbook project. Europeans, including the British, view their national history more critically than do Americans. Kings and presidents are viewed as flawed humans, whereas in the US the Founding Fathers and Lincoln are the lay equivalent of the immaculate conception. The basic problem is that, while professional historians may seek the truth, the common people need heroes.

That brings us to Jesus Christ. My main interest in life is religion, in other words what is life all about and how should we therefore behave? In the case of Christianity, that takes us to higher criticism and the search for the historical Jesus. With scholarly clerical friends, I used to discuss people like Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), the great theology professor at Berlin University, who was the leader of higher criticism. I will not bore you with my own beliefs. Suffice it to say that I do not believe in miracles, the cult of which has done the Catholic Church much harm. Therefore I do not believe in the resurrection and the ascension as miraculous facts, but I view them as mysteries, or allegories with a profound spiritual meeting. There was an uproar in France when Ernest Renan said something similar in his Life of Jesus (1863).

That brings us back to heroes, this time spiritual heroes. On Easter morn as usual I followed the mass at the Cathedral of San Fernando, in San Antonio, Texas, which provides evidence that in the US the Catholic Church is becoming Mexican. There was a choir of charming little, well-dressed girls. It being a special event, Father David Garcia went around the congregation sprinkling it with water from what is called in France a goupillon, a silver wand with a water container at the tip. Father Garcia used a sprig of what looked like olive twigs, which he dipped into a basin of water. Can someone tell me if that is the custom in Spain and in Mexico? Bishop Patricio as usual irradiated kindness and compassion, which, with the water, deeply impressed the congregation. Suppose I has spoiled all that by saying: Look, I want to tell you about higher criticism and Adolf von Harnack. The charm would have been broken. In a world full of evil and crime, ceremonies spreading the cult of kindness and compassion must do some good. How much I do not know. In Guatemala, as usual, Easter was celebrated with colorful, devout processions. This old tradition was inadequate to stop the civil war, alas.

Ronald Hilton - 4/1/02