CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST
August 16, 2009
25424 Aldine-Westfield, Spring, TX. 77373
www.blakehart.com/cypresswoodbulletin.htm
www.cypresswoodchurchofchrist.com
PRAYERS AND BLESSINGS:
God’s will for our congregation Various relatives, friends, and co-workers
Our nation, military and leaders The new school year
A PHILOSOPHER’S INFLUENCE
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
As I have stated before, I believe it is important for us to understand how we got where we are and the influences that have affected us, and those before us, whether it is in the study of scripture or culture. I am a baby boomer growing up in a time when authority was questioned, drug use increased, and the general moral character degraded. There were many influences then and now that have caused these and other aspects that have influenced culture to get where we are today. Any number of names have been attached to these, such as, modernism, postmodernism, existentialism, and relativism. None of these developed over night; changes occurred slowly over years.
Growing up in the middle sixties, a Time magazine cover had as a title, “Is God Dead?” It raised a debate for several weeks. Those who understood the title recognized it as coming from the German philosopher Friedrick Nietzsche. Even though Nietzsche’s writings are difficult to read, typical of many philosophers, his ideas have been picked up in a number of subtle ways and have been influential for most of a century. I have found Nietzsche to be an interesting character and so does Randy Harris, a professor at Abilene Christian University. In a recent lectureship series entitled “My Favorite Atheists,” one lecture was on Nietzsche, who Harris considers the most influential of philosophers (1). There are some important things that Harris brings out that we need to understand. According to Harris, if the Christian worldview is rejected, Nietzsche’s worldview makes the most sense, and so is a major competitor to Christianity today.
There are four concepts that come from Nietzsche that are important for us to understand. The first is the death of God. The philosophers and theologians of the middle of the 19th Century had watered down the God of the scriptures, and scripture itself, to the point that views of God were reduced to a feeling or to morality. Nietzsche saw this and stated, according to Harris, that God has died, and the churches have become his grave. God did not die of natural causes; we have killed him. How can we be worthy of such a deed? The only way we can be worthy is to become gods ourselves, that is, that human beings will take the place of God. Nietzsche was reacting against what he saw in the religion of his day and basically said that this god developed in the theologies and philosophies of his day was not worth saving.
A second concept was the will to power. If God is dead, what do we do? We do the will of…me, which is the will to power. Nietzsche wanted to create his own morality and it involved power. A problem he saw to this in history was that we have allowed weak people to legislate morality rather than the strong. The weak created morality to protect themselves from the strong but now it is time for the strong to assert power over the weak and stupid. The weak pass rules such as showing compassion on the needy, leaving the corner of the fields untouched for the poor, taking care of the least of these. If you are smart and powerful, all those rules do is drag one down.
These ideas have crept into popular cultural in any number of ways. There is the language of self-realization, of getting everything one desires, of it’s my way or the highway, etc. Subtle, and yet it is what is in it for me. Nietzsche’s family situation probably contributed to this idea. He was a sickly person his whole life. His sister was more insane than he was. He had no father figure (2) and no lasting relationship with women. Understanding this helps us to understanding from where Nietzsche was coming.
A third aspect is the idea of the superman. If one caters to the weak, what we will get in the next generation weaker people. If the strong assert themselves and run over the weak, and they die out, then the strong have children, you get stronger people, and through a few generations you get supermen. If we assert ourselves we will breed up. No doubt here that Nietzsche was an evolutionist. Now I do not know if he read Darwin who published earlier than Nietzsche, but he certainly took the idea of evolution further, and others have gone even further.
The final aspect to understanding Nietzsche is that of eternal recurrence. This means that we live for the moment and this should be emphasized. Giving up on God, eternal life, and life after death leaves one to emphasize the moment. Now this is where it gets a little confusing because Nietzsche saw that the present moment would happen over and over and over, hence the importance of the moment
Nietzsche was right about three things, according to Harris. One, ideas have importance. If God is dead, then the will to power is the only possible approach. Do whatever you will. Whatever is good is good as long as it is good for me. We cannot make a kinder, gentler world without the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Second, Nietzsche was right on the hard virtues of life like courage and integrity. He did not like the soft virtues of compassion and righteousness. As stated above, he had a difficult life in a number of ways. Even though he wrote much, it was difficult for him to write because of the pain involved. He understood the idea of courage.
Third, he was right in that it was time for the gods of the philosophers to die. Those gods were not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He was wrong on three things as well. He did not understand evil. He thought that getting rid of Christian morality would make things better. It didn’t. The 20th Century is a monument to the failure of Nietzsche’s ideas, as applied by others. Throughout the 20th Century, there were those who supported the evil of the Nazis and the Communists, even in light of the horrors they committed. Today, those who call something evil are ridiculed, just like in Isaiah’s day, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
He was wrong in that he assumed that the god of the philosophers was the God of the Bible. He certainly was familiar with scripture but how deeply he got into them is another story. Today, people think they are familiar with scripture but do not understand context or meaning in context of what might be said.
Finally, he was wrong about the notion that the only possible morality is what Harris calls, ethical egoism, that is, that one acts in their own self-interest.
Why write about a philosopher who died in 1900 and was insane the last ten years of his life? Because whether we admit it or not, and like it or not, his philosophy continues to influence our culture today. Many philosophies are reactions to what they saw in Christianity at the time they lived. Consider the following, again from Randy Harris.
As Christians, we are to live out the implications or consequences of a baptize life. Compare Jesus with Nietzsche:
The world of Jesus: The world of Nietzsche:
blessed are the weak blessed are the strong
what you do for the least of these we have got to get the least out of the way
love your enemies win the war
life under the reign of God continues into eternity there is nothing but the moment
Two, Nietzsche appeals to those who are smart, creative and powerful. It is these types of people who get frustrated with others who do not accept their reasoning and ethics of life. They are what some would call the elite, those in position to pass laws or present ideas that they want so as to change the direction of culture. They have relationships with others as long as they are useful to their plans. This is in contrast to the words of Jesus where the great are those who serve and the first shall be last. Is it any wonder that the Judeo-Christian ethic is criticized; it is for the outcasts and weak, not the strong. So the strong want to subvert it. The Confessing Church of Germany in the 30s and 40s opposed the state church that sold itself to Hitler. Stalin attempted to rid Russia of any and all Christian influences. Christianity is for the weak and so a hindrance to those in power. Think of the abortion debate as Christians oppose the death of the unborn. Those who support abortion seek what is in it for them, whether money or freedom from having children.
Finally, is Nietzsche winning? In the culture, Harris thinks it is clear that he is. We see it in politics and the media. Often it is in what one can get out of favorable press. We see it in the university where everyone has free speech but some speech is more free than others. Those with the Judeo-Christian ethic are told to be quiet or not to teach their worldviews, or are fired for disagreeing with the major philosophy. We see it in the fields of science and history. Only one view is allowed; all others are to be rejected without discussion.
Another problem is that Christianity has sought out power rather than service. Electing the right person will cause change to occur. We have heard that for three decades but it has only served to repel people. “Let’s take back our country” sounds like a war cry. Maybe if we live radical lives in Christ, we will influence people in such a way that changes will occur without having to be in power. Keep in mind that the first century Christians lived in a dictatorship, yet were able to influence changes through their lives, not their political activity (3).
Finally, Nietzsche just might be winning in the church as well. When we see people who judge others, label and ridicule those they do not agree with; elders who want their way no matter what or those who have the money can influence decisions; then just maybe Nietzsche is winning. Power plays and church politics have no place in the Christian life. We might find ourselves being better Nietzscheans than Christians.
Harris asks this question: If Jesus Christ were here in our presence right now, would we be saying and doing what we are saying and doing? What people today are rejecting is not the way of Jesus; they haven’t seen it. They are rejecting a god that they see Christians worshipping, but not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the God we need to proclaim. This calls for tough examination such as seen in Psalm 139.
George B. Mearns
(1) Pepperdine University Bible Lectureship, 2009.
(2) Paul Vitz, The Faith of the Fatherless.
(3) This is not to say that we should not be involved in the political process such as voting. We certainly should be praying, but we also need to live out the consequences of our baptized lives.