What Nietzsche Taught Me About Christianity
Born at the tail end of Generation X, I recognize many of the traits often associated with the generation in my own life—the ironic attitude, cynical nature, bitter realism and the refusal to take myself or anyone else seriously. Perhaps nothing captures the true essence of this generation—my generation—like Richard Linklater’s movie Slacker. Released in 1991, the movie chronicles the lives of roughly one hundred X’ers on the streets of Austin, presented in the form of brief vignettes, connected by intermingling characters. There is no plot, per se, and most of the dialogue is improvised. Instead, Linklater expresses the frustration, fears and truths of a generation by examining the most mundane activities of life.
In one scene, a young couple walks the streets of Austin on their way to an afternoon movie. As they walk, they pass a beggar on the streets. The young woman offers the beggar some change and Diet Coke. As the couple turns the corner, the young man expresses his frustration, “You know, there’s something very wrong with that.” The lady, obviously a bit taken back, inquires whether her date refers to offering the beggar change or a soft drink laden with possible carcinogens, like NutraSweet.
The young man confirms that not only was he referring to both the soda and the money, but that the action was bad for the beggar and the giver. “Him because it’s not really gonna help him. And you because that relationship is naturally going to involve that condescending element, maybe even contempt.”
The two continue to walk and continue to talk—the lady admitting that a couple of nickels won’t have a tremendous impact on the beggars life and the young man stating that the lady’s compassion prohibits her from realizing the beggars true “potential”, before he finally issues his thesis, accusing her of being chained to a “slave morality.”
“But it’s like all these other futile causes that you fall into. They all stem from a certain weakness. You know, psychologically helping everyone else out is easier. It’s an escape from working on yourself, from perfecting yourself.”
I’ll admit that I’m partially drawn to this scene because of its not so subtle reference to Nietzsche, but also because I think it’s a perfect illustration of how I often interpret the post-modern movement of the Christian church.
In full disclosure, I don’t claim to be an expert on any particular discipline of Christianity, but I do have several pastor friends and I have associated with many Christians who seem to work the term “post-Modern” or simply “PoMo” into their theological discussions. I admit, this doesn’t necessarily make them adherents to “post-Modern” theology, but their use of the term helps, in part, to form my limited understanding of its tenants.
Their worldview begins with something like this:
We live in a “post modern” society and the Church must change in order to reach the masses. They seek to appeal to a broader audience, often filling their sermons with allusions to both counter and pop-culture icons and events and seem to focus more on spirituality, than religion. Most importantly, their ministry begins and ends with promoting “social justice,” with followers adhering strictly to the words attributed to Jesus found in the Gospels, leading some within the movement to describe themselves as “red letter” Christians.
None of this sounds terribly nefarious, but I worry about some of the assumptions they seem to make. Namely, that Christianity as we know it, a religion that thanks to God’s divine influence continues to evolve, must radically change in order to effectively minister to an increasingly diverse flock and to effectively face the social justice challenges of the 21st Century. In a sense, it seems to abandon the principles of faith favored by traditional theology and adopt an overly secular approach to confronting the issues.
Ironically, I rely partially on my knowledge of Nietzsche, one of the harshest critics of Christianity in Western thought, to expose this logical fallacy. As I reflect on the scene from Slacker that I described above, the girl seems to represent the “post-Modern” Christian, someone chained to slave morality, and the guy represents the Christian traditionalist or, in Nietzsche’s world, master morality, except unlike Nietzsche’s version, this is a Divinely inspired, not a man made philosophy.
Like any moral human, I desire to help others. Throughout the Bible, I find commandments to believers to assist those in need and I long to do my part to make the world a better place with less hunger, less poverty, less discrimination and far more love and far less hate. I read the Bible and believe that, “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2:26)”.
I think what the guy says conveys a relevant message for us all. It would appear that the “social justice” of the “post-Modern” Christian, of the girl, involves going out giving money to the poor, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, regardless of the situation.
We must put change in the coffers of the beggar. Very little, if any, thought goes to the beggar’s spiritual state or the cause of his poverty. The Christian traditionalist looks at the beggar and seeks to first address the obvious needs—clothing, food, shelter—but in the process identify the source of the problem and seek to rely on God as an agent of change for that particular situation.
If the problem lies within the person, the Christian traditionalist realizes the awesome, transforming power of Jesus Christ, and realizes that once the beggar is saved he will be well on his way to breaking the poverty cycle. Instead of constantly giving hand outs to the beggar, the redeemed beggar learns from the Christian traditionalist how to become a contributing member of society and starts to earn an honest living. In other words, it goes back to the old saying, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”
If we don’t change the heart of man (collectively), what good will our works do? Take for example a starving kid in Africa. The starving African kid is not starving because of corporate America, nor is he starving because Americans drive luxury cars, listen to iPods and have 900 channels on their TV. The African child is starving because he had the misfortune of being born into a country of corrupt leaders. We can send all the food we want; we can send all the money we want. We can volunteer for the Peace Corps and live with the tribe teaching them skills and building houses, but as long as the leaders are corrupt, the problem will exist. Not until the leaders are transformed by God can serious changes be made. Again, that’s not to say you shouldn’t contribute to help fight hunger, poverty or discrimination, but just realize that is not the solution to the problem—you are merely applying a band aide to a much larger problem.
What about the starving kid in the United States? Again, the poor, starving American child is not a product of certain Americans’ success. The fact that there are Americans who do succeed proves that there is a deeper, underlying problem. Simply giving the needy food and money will not solve the problem. As a people and as Christians, we must closely examine the problems that lead to poverty and hunger. Is it because of personal vice and a lack of education? If so, we have the answer to those problems.
Why then does “post-Modern” Christianity seem to focus so intensely on giving as opposed to teaching? Anyone can give. Giving is easy and it serves as a good masking agent for guilt.
However, it is hard to come to terms with some of the truths of Christianity. It’s hard to accept the fact that “original sin” exists. It’s hard to accept the fact that we need to be redeemed. It’s hard to accept the fact that God so loved the world, He gave His only Son to die for this redemption. It’s hard to understand the renewing of the mind and spirit we experience once Christ comes into our lives, a renewing that will eventually lead to our perfection—not here, but on God’s celestial shores(Romans 12:2).
Indeed, Christianity is hard! The guilt of being a sinner and falling short of the Glory of God is nothing new. Paul writes about the experience extensively. What is new are the methods man will invent to cope with this guilt. Modern man often chooses to fight guilt by using the almighty dollar or seeks to use political power to legislate their view of morality.
I aim not to disparage “post-Modern” Christianity, but I do seek to gain a better understanding of a theology that on the surface I simply do not understand.
