“Manderlay” – Empowering vs. Enabling

I recently watched the movie “Manderlay” directed by Lars Von Trier at work. As I saw it, the movie is essentially a strong critique of white liberalism and the idea of ‘helping’ or ‘fixing’ people or groups of people. I don’t want to ruin the movie’s plot for you, but it revolves around the idea of a white person (a savior figure) forcing a group of African-American people to leave their system of slavery that they are used to. The repercussions are far-reaching and many difficult questions are raised along the way. Certainly, “Manderlay” is a very thought-provoking film – one that I recommend.

For me, working at a non-profit organization dedicated to ‘helping’ low-income and first generation students get into college and graduate with four-year degrees, this movie and its central questions hit particularly close to home. It’s an idea I have wrestled with more and more over my last year and a half working at College Forward. What is the difference between genuine, beneficial empowering of people and ultimately harmful enabling of people?

More and more, I think this is a tenuous balance. It is all too easy to come in as the “great white hope”, the Messiah, the ’fixer’ and end up doing more long term harm than good. It’s easy to enable people but I believe much more difficult to empower people. Empowerment requires an investment from the people being helped and this requires patience and an understanding that there may be failures along the way for the one extending the helping hand. Often, organizations that strive to empower others lack the patience and understanding that not everyone is willing or able to meet you halfway or take the responsibility necessary to become empowered. Of course, many people are ready and willing and seize the opportunity given them. 

What other questions did “Manderlay” raise? One was when is outside interference necessary and when should the “natural” societal evolution of the system win the day? Everyone knows the phrase about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him fish, but what if that man could have figured out his own method of fishing given enough time on his own? When is interrupting with a helping hand necessary, good and beneficial for those being helped? When is it ultimately destructive? Why does the U.S. enter Iraq and ‘take responsibility’ for that country but fails to intervene in Darfur? Should the U.S. have done either or both? Should non-profit NGO’s deliver food aid to countries in Africa or not? Are there some situations (e.g. disaster or genocidal situations) where this help is beneficial? How are people impacted by these ‘helping hands’ or perhaps one would say ‘handouts’? When does ‘aid work’ become a synonym for ‘new colonialism’?

I am still searching for the right balance to interventionist acts, but the I know the process must be one of extreme caution and care. Focus should be put on minimizing the amount of dependence on outside sources and putting the locus of control (as much as possible) within the community being helped. Often, this is not the case – often power-hungry people disguise their need for power and control behind the facade of a ‘helping hand.’ In reality, people find a false worth and self-value by making people dependent on their helping hand – by rescuing others, one finds value in oneself. This is a dangerous mentality, but one that is all too easy to fall into.

Overall, I recommend the movie “Manderlay” – it raises many thoughtful questions – ones that I am still wrestling with.

Any thoughts?

An atheist in church?! Yes indeed!

At long last, victory! I’ve finally found (well heard of) a church that has an atheist who is a regular attender and member (and who even gave a sermon at the church the other week!). The church is St. Andrew’s Presbyterian in Austin, TX and I’m hoping to be able to go there on an upcoming Sunday. Apparently, the atheist is a professor at nearby University of Texas and gave his sermon on the topic of the importance of questioning in a person’s faith journey. Anyway, I’m excited and thought I’d share the news!

Peace,

Wallace’s Thesis: Conceptions of Human Perfection From Nietzsche and Christianity

Below is a thesis my buddy Wallace from College Forward wrote – it’s on Nietzsche and Christianity and explores thoughts I’ve also had – that perhaps Nietzsche’s fiercest criticisms of Christianity were actually criticisms of a listless, decrepit (but all too common) Christianity and that maybe the two could speak to each other – given a different understanding of each other.

As always, comments are welcome!

 

Wallace Bourgeois

4/11/08

Adviser: William Schweiker

 Conceptions of Human Perfection from Nietzsche and Christianity

Nietzsche is Christianity’s greatest critic. At the end of The Anti-Christ, a book that condemns the way Christians live, Nietzsche states his reason for writing the book, “I want to write this eternal indictment of Christianity on every wall… I call [Christianity] the one immortal blot on humanity.”[i] This rejection of Christianity is really a rejection of the way Christianity is practiced. Nietzsche’s greatest concern is with the way people live. Nietzsche believes that humans should strive for existences marked by the continual accumulation of power. Power here does not mean a physical power or a power over other people, but rather a power over one’s own life in the form of having the strength to affirm one’s own existence, in other words, a yes-saying to life. Such a task requires continually discerning for oneself truth and moral categories, and it takes a powerful individual to undertake such a task. This power is opposed to the weakness Nietzsche sees emanating from Christianity, which is a result of the practice of pity and the belief in a world beyond. Nietzsche’s most substantial critique against Christianity is that it leads to nihilistic values (the will to nothingness) as opposed to noble values (the will to power).

In light of this seemingly explicit rejection of Christianity (and many others throughout The Anti-Christ), it appears that any dialectic between Nietzsche and Christianity will be fruitless. However, this is an incorrect assumption for two reasons. First, Nietzsche does not reject all of Christianity. He rejects Christian practice, which he separates from his notion of ‘true Christianity’: living the way Jesus[1] lived. Nietzsche’s desire to eradicate the immortal blot of Christianity does not include what he calls ‘true Christianity’. Second, he misunderstands parts of Christianity, for example neighbor love and faith. He thinks such practices can only lead to nihilism, when in fact they can help people accumulate strength and power. Thus, a dialectic can be engaged between ‘true Christianity’[2] (non-nihilistic Christian practice) and Nietzsche’s thought sans his mistaken criticisms. However, Nietzsche is not looking to improve Christian practice through a better understanding of ‘true Christianity’ or some other method. Instead he rejects Christianity and offers a conception of the Overman, who he feels can better attain strength and power over his own life. Nevertheless, in this paper I intend to begin a dialectic between the Overman and Christianity because they both offer conceptions of what constitutes human perfection.

The respective conceptions of  human perfection in Nietzsche’s Overman and Christianity will serve as the common thread in moving toward a synthetic conception of human perfection. The goal of this paper is to show that if the flaws inherent in the respective conceptions of human perfection: the tendency towards nihilism in Christianity and the isolation of the Overman, are considered with the strengths of each: the ability of Christian love to form bonds between people and the Overman’s powerful strivings to affirm life, then a new conception of human perfection arises in which a person can live a noble and powerful life while still allowing for meaningful communal existence with fellow men.

 

NIETZSCHE’S CRITICISMS OF CHRISTIANITY

            Before a dialectic can be begun, it must first be shown that Nietzsche sees Christianity endorsing nihilistic values. In other words, values that are not compatible with a state of human perfection. In order to understand his criticism of Christianity, it is important to clarify what Nietzsche is critiquing. Nietzsche attacks Christian practice, or, in other words, the way in which he observes Christians living their lives. “The absurd residuum of Christianity, its fables, concept-spinning, and theology, do not concern us; they could be a thousand times more absurd, and we should not lift a finger against them.”[ii] As Walter Kauffmann describes it, “What Nietzsche attacks is not the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount but Philistine morality.”[iii] In other words, Nietzsche is not attacking some ideal conception of Christianity, but rather he is making criticisms of empirical Christianity. Along the same lines, Nietzsche’s criticisms of Christianity should not be confused with what he says about Jesus. Nietzsche’s conception of Jesus (to be discussed later) is separate from his thoughts concerning Christianity, which he sees as the creation of men like Paul, whom he calls the ‘first Christian’[3]. In the following discussion of Nietzsche’s criticisms of Christianity, when the term Christianity is used, it means the practice of Christians that Nietzsche witnesses and does not include Nietzsche’s conception of Jesus or his notion of ‘true Christianity’.

            Nietzsche’s basic attack against Christianity is that it encourages weakness instead of encouraging the power and strength needed to affirm life. It is for this reason that he calls Christianity the one immortal blot on humanity. For Nietzsche, love for humanity would require the desire to see the weak perish and the strong flourish. “The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity.”[iv] In order to understand these two statements, Nietzsche’s underlying definitions must be known. In the beginning of The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche defines good, bad, and happiness in terms of feelings of power:

“What is good? Everything that enhances people’s feeling of power, will to power, power itself. What is bad? Everything stemming from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that some resistance has been overcome… What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all failures and weakness- Christianity.”[v]

For Nietzsche, his conception of power and weakness is the basis for what he considers good and bad. These atypical definitions render Christianity ‘bad’ for hindering humanity’s ability to produce powerful men.

Nietzsche argues that nihilistic values are pervasive in Christianity. Nihilism is the will to nothingness, and is the opposite of the will to power. He thinks that life is an instinct for growth and accumulation of power (will to power), and for this reason nihilistic value are life-denying:

“I consider life itself to be an instinct for growth, for endurance, for the accumulation of force, for power; when there is no will to power, there is decline. My claim is that none of humanity’s highest values have had this will, -that nihilistic values, values of decline, have taken control under the aegis of the holiest names.”[vi]

Nietzsche sees this current scenario as problematic, for when people embrace nihilistic values, they are destined to mediocrity. He thinks that great men will be produced with less frequency, and that people will actively pursue weak lives. Human perfection is replaced with human decline. In On the Genealogy of Morality, he discusses how he believes the highest values have been replaced with values that cause weakness.

Nietzsche thinks that originally the distinctions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emanated from the differences between ‘the good’ (the noble) and ‘the bad’ (the lowly).

“It has been ‘the good’ themselves, meaning the noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded, who saw and judged themselves and their actions as good, I mean first-rate, in contrast to everything lowly, low minded, common and plebeian. It was from this pathos of distance that they first claimed the right to create values and give these values names.”[vii]

To support this claim, he looks at the etymological roots of the word ‘good’ in many languages and finds that it is tied to the notion of strength.[4] “Everywhere, ‘noble’, ‘aristocratic’ in social terms is the basic concept from which, necessarily, ‘good’ in the sense of ’spiritually noble’, ‘aristocratic’, of ’spiritually highminded’, ’spiritually privileged’ developed: a development that always runs parallel with that other one which ultimately transfers ‘common’, plebeian’, ‘low’ into the concept ‘bad’.”[viii] However, this is no longer the case. He no longer sees the connection between the idea of ‘good’ and the ways of powerful noble men. Instead, particularly in Christianity, he sees weakness replacing the notion of ‘good’.

The disconnect between ‘good’ and noble is due to the emergence of the ‘man of ressentiment‘, a lowly and weak type of man, who defines his strong and noble enemies as ‘bad’. This is as opposed to the method of the noble man who was able to create his own categories of good and bad independent of the desire for revenge upon his enemies.

“Imagine ‘the enemy’ as conceived by the man of ressentiment- and here we have his deed, his creation: he has conceived of the ‘evil enemy’, ‘the evil one‘ as a basic idea to which he now thinks up a copy and counterpart, the ‘good one’- himself. Exactly the opposite is true of the noble one who conceives of the basic idea ‘good’ by himself, in advance and spontaneously, and only then creates a notion of ‘bad’!… But it is not the same concept ‘good’; on the contrary, one should ask who is actually evil in the sense of the morality of ressentiment. The stern reply is: precisely the ‘good’ person of the other morality, the noble, powerful, dominating one, but re-touched, re-interpreted and reviewed through the poisonous eye of ressentiment.”[ix]

Basically, the ‘man of ressentiment‘ is responsible for the transvaluation of the meanings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that leads to the weak people’s hatred of noble and powerful people. This eventually leads to the weak ‘man of ressentiment’s‘ nihilistic values being upheld as ‘good’ values while also causing an aversion to the noble man. “The sight of man now makes us tired- what is nihilism today if it is not that?… We are tired of man…”[x] For Nietzsche, nihilism describes a state in which the strong man is hated by the weak and the will to power has disappeared. People begin to despise the powerful noble man, and this is ‘bad’ according to Nietzsche’s definition, for everything is bad that does not enhance power.

            Nietzsche thinks the process of the ‘man of ressentiment‘ creating nihilistic values has occurred in Christianity. “Nihilist and Christian: this rhymes, it does more than just rhyme…”[5][xi] In Christianity, Nietzsche sees the weakest things being espoused while nobility is destroyed. “Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against everything that has height: the evangel of the ‘lowly’ makes things lower…”[xii] Nietzsche sees a paradigmatic example of this in the Christian image of Christ on the cross.

Christianity: “appealed to all the types that had been disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere… everything well-constituted, proud, high-spirited, beauty above all, hurt their ears and eyes. This reminds me again of the invaluable words of Paul. ‘The weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, hath God chosen’: this was the formula, decadence was victorious in hoc signo. -God on the cross- have people still not grasped the gruesome ulterior motive behind this symbol? Everything that suffers, everything nailed to the cross is divine… Christianity won, and with this a nobler sensibility was destroyed, -Christianity has been the worst thing to happen to humanity so far.”[xiii]

Nietzsche sees Christianity fitting within the formula outlined in On the Genealogy of Morality in that the weak, in their hatred for the strong and noble, have defined the strong as evil and called themselves God’s chosen who will be rewarded when they reach heaven.

            Not only does Nietzsche criticize Christianity for the hatred of noble instinct, but he also for leading to self-hatred through the notions of bad conscience and sin. This self-hatred denies man his natural instinct to accumulate power. The negative effects of bad conscience and sin are discussed in On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche writes, “With sin, we have the most dangerous and disastrous trick of religious interpretation.”[xiv] The ‘trick’ that Nietzsche refers to is that of priests ‘tricking’ sick[6] people into believing that the reason they are such sickly and miserable beings is due to their own sin. The process Nietzsche envisions is as follows: First, the reason these people are sick is because their animal instincts have been stymied. People are “rather like an animal imprisoned in a cage.”[xv] The sickly person is in this state because of the transvaluation of values that declares his natural animal instincts that would drive him to an accumulation of power are ‘bad’. Such a person searches for a reason for his suffering, and the ascetic priest gives him one. “From this magician, the ascetic priest, he receives the first tip as to the ’cause’ of his suffering: he should look within himself, in guilt, in a piece of the past, he should understand his suffering itself as a condition of punishment…”[xvi] When people are told that their natural animalistic instincts are bad and are the cause of their suffering, they begin to experience self-hatred. This hatred of self, this aversion to one’s natural inclinations, is unnatural. Nietzsche writes of sin: “And this is the greatest crime against humanity…. Sin, this supreme form of human self-desecration.”[xvii] Sin makes people care for “‘Salvation of the soul’ instead of health.”[xviii] Nietzsche equates the preference of the ’salvation of the soul’ over ‘health’ as picking self-destruction over enhancing one’s own power.

            Another Christian practice that Nietzsche sees as leading to nihilism is the belief in the supremacy of a ‘world beyond’ over life on earth, especially a world beyond that is freely granted to everyone. He sees this as playing a role in the destruction of noble values. “Granting ‘immortality’ to every Tom, Dick, and Harry has been the most enormous and most vicious attempt to assassinate noble humanity.”[xix] Nietzsche’s rationale is that, if immortality is granted to all people, then the emphasis on living a powerful life is lost, which results in people losing the desire to thrive on earth, or even pursue happiness on earth. He also sees communal instincts being devalued through the promise of immortality

“When the emphasis of life is put on the ‘beyond’ rather than on life itself- when it is put on nothingness-, then the emphasis has been completely removed from life… What is the point of public spirit, of being grateful for your lineage or for your ancestors, what is the point of working together, of confidence, of working towards any sort of common goal or even keeping one in mind?… That as immortal souls, everyone is on the same level as everyone else… Christianity owes its victory to this miserable flattery of personal vanity, -it is precisely the failures, the rebellion-prone, the badly developed, all the rejects and dejects of humanity, that Christianity has won over by these means.”[xx]

Nietzsche is concerned with individual life practice here on earth. He sees Christianity’s promises of immortality hindering the desire to attain any state of human perfection.

            In Nietzsche’s critiques of Christianity, he has identified aspects of Christianity that run counter to his idea of a perfected human state. His ideal perfected human state is that of the Overman, a state in which power is accumulated through continual growth. The weak, led by the man of ressentiment and the ascetic priest, perpetuate and glorify weakness by defining their powerful enemies as bad. Nietzsche thinks this has occurred in Christianity, paradigmatically in Paul’s interpretation of Christ on the cross. Thus, in his analysis of Christianity, the practice of self-hatred, the practice of belief in a world beyond at the expense of earthly life, and the practice of nihilistic values (the non-practice of the will to power) are all opposed to and actively hinders his conception of the perfected human state, the Overman.

In fact, it is difficult to imagine any conception of human perfection that could incorporate all the negative aspects of Christianity. As Hans Kung writes, “If Christianity really were as Nietzsche saw it, then it could be and would have to be rejected today, and for good reasons.”[xxi] The extent to which his depiction of Christianity is accurate will be discussed later, but for now we should reflect upon his understanding of Christianity.

 

NIETZSCHE’S ‘TRUE CHRISTIANITY’: LIVING LIKE HIS CONCEPTION OF JESUS

            Though Nietzsche levels substantial criticisms against Christianity, he allows for the possibility of ‘true Christianity’. Nietzsche defines ‘true Christianity’ as living like Jesus. “Only the practice of Christianity is really Christian, living like the man who died on the cross… A life like this is still possible today, for certain people it is even necessary: true original Christianity will always be possible…”[xxii] He thinks no Christian has ever met this standard. “Even the word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding-, there was really only one Christian, and he died on the cross… In fact, there have never been any Christians.”[xxiii] Nietzsche argues that Christians are not living the way Jesus instructed. He believes this to be an objective claim, and cites examples within the world to support his claim.

“A young prince at the head of his regiments, whose magnificence is an expression of the selfishness and self-importance of his people, -he calls himself Christian without a hint of shame!… The fact that people are soldiers, judges, patriots; that they defend themselves; that they defend their honour; that they do what is best for themselves; that they are proud… Every practice at every moment, every instinct, every value judgment that people act on is anti-Christian these days: what miscarriages of duplicity modern people are, that in spite of all this they are not ashamed to call themselves Christians!”[xxiv]

This is more than just a criticism that Christians fail in their attempts to live as perfect a life as their savior. It is a criticism that Christians are not even trying to live a life like their savior, and the examples he gives illustrate precisely that point. Nietzsche thinks the reason that Christians act upon the wrong principles is because Jesus’ life and death have been fundamentally misunderstood.

            Nietzsche’s statement that ‘there have never been any Christians’ is predicated upon his depiction of Jesus. But before discussing his unique depiction of Jesus, the way in which he separates Jesus and the resulting ‘true Christianity’ from empirical Christianity should be discussed. It is due to this separation that he is able to interpret Jesus in his own way. The Christianity that he thinks is an immortal blot on humanity arose because of Paul and other Christian interpreters, like Luther. Nietzsche writes that, “The history of Christianity- starting, in fact, with the death on the cross- is the story of the progressively cruder misunderstanding of an original symbolism.”[xxv] He blames Paul for introducing the themes of hatred and revenge into Jesus’ message. “On the heels of the ‘glad tidings’ came the very worst ones of all: Paul’s. Paul epitomizes a type that is the antithesis of the ‘bringer of glad tidings’, the genius in hatred, in the vision of hatred, in the merciless logic of hatred. And how much this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the redeemer: he nailed him to his own cross.”[xxvi]

Nietzsche criticizes Paul’s interpretation of Jesus on the grounds that Paul focuses on Jesus’ death while ignoring the more important message contained within Jesus’ life. “Paul simply shifted the emphasis of this whole being [Jesus], putting it behind this being, -into the lie of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’.”[xxvii] The ‘lie of Jesus’ ‘resurrection” refers to Paul’s and other early Christian communities’ interpretation of Christ’s death. Whereas Nietzsche views Jesus as a moral teacher whose message was contained within the way he lived on earth, these early Christian interpreters considered Jesus to be divine. Once Jesus died, these early Christians had to deal with the problem of their divine teacher’s death.

“And from now on there is the ridiculous problem of ‘how could God have let this happen!’ The unbalanced reason of the small community found a horrible absurd answer: God gave his son to forgive sins, as a sacrifice. This brought the evangel to an end in one fell swoop. The guilt sacrifice, and in fact in its most revolting, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty!”[xxviii]

As discussed earlier, Nietzsche is particularly critical of the image of a powerful man (Jesus) being killed for the preservation of weaker beings.

For Nietzsche, this early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ death fits within the previously discussed framework from On the Genealogy of Morality whereby the ‘men of ressentiment‘ define their enemies as ‘evil’ and themselves as good. In his mind, the early Christian interpretation of Christ’s death leads to the meek non-powerful life becoming the ideal. As support of such logic, Nietzsche quotes at length from 1 Cor. 1:20, where Paul writes: “‘Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.’”[xxix] Nietzsche is particularly interested in this passage because he thinks it contains an explicit command for people to not be wise and noble. Based on the emphasis placed on the words ‘God hath chosen’, he sees God as choosing the foolish and weak to thwart the wise so that no flesh should have any glory. He views such an interpretation as revenge against the noble morality, something that prevents people from desiring to accumulate power. He writes that this is a “first-rate testimony” of the contrast “between a noble morality” and a “morality born of ressentiment and impotent revenge. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge.”[xxx]

            In response to Paul’s interpretation of Jesus, Nietzsche creates his own unique depiction of Jesus. In interpreting Jesus’ life, it is important to note that Nietzsche is not making a claim to greater historical accuracy. Rather, he emphasizes certain aspects of Jesus’ actions and ignores or rejects others. In this regard, Nietzsche sees his method as no different than Paul’s, who he thinks emphasizes the death of Jesus while ignoring his life. Furthermore, he is aware that he is projecting certain ideas onto Jesus that Jesus himself may not have recognized. At the end of a section where he describes Jesus as having rebelled against the social hierarchy of Israel, which in turn led him to die for his own guilt, he writes that it is not even certain that Jesus was aware of the colors with which he had painted him. “It is a completely different question whether this sort of opposition was what he had in mind.”[xxxi] Certainly people will disapprove of his approach, citing historical inaccuracy and lack of objectivity. However, to do so is to miss the point, as Hans Kung points out. “Detailed refutations would fill volumes and yet would not be worthwhile. For it is a question not of details but of the whole.”[xxxii] The implications of his interpretation of Jesus, not the accuracy of the methodology, are the more worthwhile pursuit. His presentation of Jesus should not raise questions as to its historical accuracy, but rather raise the question: why does he depict Jesus in such a manner? Without an understanding of how he envisions Jesus, and the resulting ‘true Christianity’, any dialectic will be impossible.

            For Nietzsche, Jesus’ central message is that the kingdom of heaven is on earth. Nietzsche’s Jesus is a powerful man who calls people to live a blessed, heavenly, and divine life. Nietzsche’s Jesus teaches the affirmation of life, a yes-saying to life, and the power necessary to look at one’s life and determine that it is worthy of eternity[7]. He denotes Jesus’ message as being different from a faith, but rather solely a new way of living one’s life. “The profound instinct for how we must live to feel as if we are ‘in heaven’, to feel as if we are ‘eternal’, given that we do not feel remotely as if we are ‘in heaven’ when we behave in any other way: this, and this alone, is the psychological reality of ‘redemption’. -A new way of life, not a new faith…”[xxxiii]

In order to depict Jesus as a life-affirmer, Nietzsche reads the divinity of Jesus and his status as the ’son of God’ as only a symbol. In The Anti-Christ he calls Jesus ‘the great symbolist’, citing Jesus’ extensive use of parables. Thus, the notion of Jesus as the ’son of God’ is only a symbol for living the heavenly life on earth. “What the signs ‘father’ and ’son’ suggest: the word ’son’ expresses the entrance into a feeling of the total transfiguration of all things (blessedness), and the word ‘father’ expresses this feeling itself, the feeling of eternity, of perfection.”[xxxiv] Nietzsche’s rejection of the divinity of Jesus is a rejection of the notion that the feelings of blessedness and divinity are only attainable in a world beyond, “Any distance between God and man: these are abolished, -this is what the ‘glad tidings’ are all about. Blessedness is not a promise, it has no strings attached: it is the only reality-…”[xxxv] With regards to the distance between God and man being abolished, Tracy Strong makes a useful comparison: “Nietzsche sees in Christ’s life a unity of god and man, much in the manner that in the mind of the Greeks, the Homeric heroes were close to their God.”[xxxvi] Just as the Homeric heroes served as paradigmatic representations of the heroic life for the Greeks, Nietzsche holds up Jesus in a similar way for people who want to pursue a powerful life.

The conception of Jesus pursuing a divine and blessed life on earth and not in a ‘world beyond’ is intended to be the powerful and life-affirming opposite of the Christian God. Nietzsche’s depiction of Jesus and his conception of the Christian God represent antipodes. He describes the Christian God as being a horrible example of how people should live their lives.

“One of the most corrupt conceptions of God the world has ever seen… God having degenerated into a contradiction of life instead of its transfiguration and eternal yes! God as declared aversion to life, to nature, to the will to life! God as the formula for every slander against ‘the here and now’, for every lie about the ‘beyond’! God as the deification of nothingness, the canonization of the will to nothingness.”[xxxvii]

For Nietzsche, the Christian God promotes nihilism and weakness. His Jesus is a life-affirmer and represents the earthly fusion of God and man. The importance of his depiction of Jesus cannot be understated. He has created a paradigmatic life-affirmer and a powerful individual who can say yes to life on earth. In addition to criticizing the pervasive weakness of Christianity, he also claims that Christians have inadequately interpreted the message contained in their savior’s life. His depiction of Jesus has a two-fold purpose: to give a glimpse of the nature of a powerful and life-affirming individual as well as serving as polar opposite of everything Christian. “What did Jesus deny? All that is Christian.”[xxxviii]

            If, in fact, Jesus lived “not ‘to redeem humanity’, but instead to demonstrate how people need to live”, then what is the nature of such a life? Nietzsche never explicitly states what form such a life will take. However, he does tell us what this kind of life does not include. The life that seeks the kingdom of heaven within one’s own heart and not in a world beyond is devoid of the notions of sin and ressentiment. “The concepts of guilt and punishment are completely missing from the psychology of the ‘evangel’; so is the concept of reward.”[8] To support this claim, he focuses on Jesus’ role as a lawbreaker of Jewish law (incidentally, Paul also does so in Galatians, but for different reasons). “What the evangel did away with was the Judaism of the concepts of ’sin’, ‘forgiveness of sin’, ‘faith’, ‘redemption through faith’- the whole Jewish church doctrine was rejected in the ‘glad tidings’.”[xxxix] Nietzsche sees hatred, judgment, personal immortality, and ressentiment entering Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ death[xl], Nietzsche has a more life-affirming interpretation of Jesus’ death.

“The whole evangel is contained in the words to the thieves on the cross. ‘That was a truly divine man, a “child of God”‘, said the thief. ‘If this is how you feel’, the redeemer[9] replied, ‘then you are in paradise[10], then you too are a child of God…’ Not to defend yourself, not to get angry, not to lay blame… But not to resist evil either, -to love it…”[xli]

For Nietzsche, attributing to a man being crucified for his own guilt[11] the power to not feel hatred toward others and still affirm life is a testament to the man’s power over life.

            The importance of Nietzsche’s conception of Jesus is not limited to the depiction of a life-affirming and powerful individual; it is also significant because of the similarity it bears to Zarathustra and his doctrine of eternal return. Tracy Strong concludes his book “Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration” with a chapter on Nietzsche’s conception of eternal recurrence. For Strong it is the most distinctive aspect of Nietzsche’s thought, as well as serving as a fusion of all his other important thoughts. Strong writes, “Nietzsche claims explicitly in Ecce Homo that eternal return forms the ‘fundamental conception’ of Zarathustra, and constitutes the ‘highest formula of affirmation that is attainable’ he links the ‘the philosophy of eternal return’ with Dionysos as the sign and indicator of the transvaluation of values which he is seeking to achieve.”[xlii] What exactly is the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence? It is the idea that every moment of a person’s life will be repeated infinitely many times for eternity. Thus, it a measure of a person’s ability to affirm life, for only a person willing to have every moment of their life repeat infinitely many times is capable of accepting such a proposition. It is also a challenge for people to live their lives in such a way that they would want every moment of their lives to be repeated. Just as some Christians want to have their in heaven to last for eternity, Nietzsche is calling for people to have the kingdom of heaven in their hearts, to make their earthly life worthy of infinite repetition. He proposes this challenge in The Gay Science.

“What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence…’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and everything, ‘Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?’ would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?”[xliii]

Thomas Alitzer argues that, when considered alongside Eternal Recurrence, Zarathustra and Jesus are grappling with a similar task. To make this point, Alitzer first argues for the link between Eternal Recurrence and Zarathustra’s proclamation of the ‘death of God’. In Eternal Recurrence, “Eternity lies both behind and ahead of every actual and present moment; it is a circle that cannot admit any eternal ‘other’ beyond the present moment. Consequently, the Eternal recurrence proclaimed by Zarathustra is an eternity, an actual and present eternity, embodying the death of God.”[xliv] Alitzer then cites passages within The Anti-Christ that show that Nietzsche conceives of Jesus’ existence as one in which God is dead. For Alitzer, the death of God represents the destruction of any distance between God and man as well as the destruction of sin and guilt, both of which are things that Nietzsche argues Jesus did away with.[12] For Alitzer, “At bottom, Eternal Recurrence is a way of totally loving the world.”[xlv] I think this is precisely the picture Nietzsche paints of Jesus, for his Jesus seems capable of affirming the demon’s challenge and willing that every moment of his life be repeated an infinite number of times. For example, as discussed earlier, his Jesus is able to affirm his life even when he is being crucified. The fact that parallels exist between arguably the most synthetic aspect of hiss thought (eternal recurrence) and his conception of Jesus is a powerful endorsement that Nietzsche would not be opposed to the notion of Jesus’ life serving as a basis for the perfected human state.

            The doctrine of Eternal Recurrence is a challenge not just for Nietzsche’s Overman, but also for the person existing in any conception of human perfection. He would argue, and I would agree with him, that if a person reaches a state of human perfection and does not wish every moment of his or her life to be repeated infinitely many times for eternity, then such a state is ultimately nihilistic, a state that ultimately wills nothingness. For example, there is something alarming in an ideology that upholds martyrdom in the form of suicide bombing as an ideal. Life is devalued in such a state. Any conception of human perfection in which a person is unable to meet the demon in Eternal Recurrence’s challenge is ultimately a flawed state, for it admits that there is no attainable state in which life is truly enjoyable and worth living.

 

NIETZSCHE’S MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

            Before a dialectic can be begun between Christianity and the Overman, it must be shown that Christianity is not entirely how Nietzsche depicts it and that it has something substantial to offer in a discussion of what constitutes human perfection. The criticisms that Nietzsche makes against the Christianity he observes (as opposed to ‘true Christianity’) are undoubtedly condemnatory. However, the question needs to be asked: to what extent has Nietzsche accurately conceived of Christian practice? Hans Kung concedes that the Christianity Nietzsche sees is deplorable and must be rejected. However, following this statement, Kung lists ways in which he believes that Nietzsche has misinterpreted aspects of Christianity, misinterpretations that lead to the false conclusion that Christianity should be rejected. The most substantial misunderstandings that Kung accuses Nietzsche of making in his assessment of Christianity are that “the concept of the ‘good man’ implies taking the side of all the weak, the sick, the failures, all those suffering from themselves, against the people who say Yes, who are certain of the future, who are guaranteed the future,” and that “the concept ‘beyond’ or ‘true world’ [has] been invented in order to value the only world that exists, in order to have no goal, no reason, no function left for this earthly reality.”[xlvi] Nietzsche’s conception of the Christian ‘good man’ and his thoughts on faith in a ‘world beyond’ will be considered individually.

            In Nietzsche’s critiques of Christianity, he has misunderstood what the Christian ‘good man’ is. He thinks that Christianity is, at its core, a religion based on pity.[13] He then proceeds to show how pity causes a loss of strength, which he views as an easy argument because “pity preserves things that are ripe for decline”, which “runs counter to the law of development.”[xlvii] This is a one-sided criticism of pity based on the erroneous assumption that everything that is pitied is ripe for decline. Pity for the helplessness of one’s progeny, both in humans and in animals, helps preserve things that are ripe for ascension to greater power. Many of Nietzsche’s critiques of weak people stem from the fact that they are denying their natural instincts that would lead to strength[14]. Obviously, he wants people to forsake pity, but would this not constitute a negation of a natural instinct akin to a weak person denying their own natural instincts, a type of denial that he explicitly rejects?

            Nietzsche’s characterization of Christianity as a ‘religion of pity’ would likely draw the ire of some Christians, who would prefer to call it a ‘religion of love’. The core of Christ’s message is for people to love their neighbors, an action that includes but is not strictly limited to pity. Sometimes it takes pity, the arousal of sympathy of compassion for another being, in order to love one’s neighbor. Nietzsche, despite his dislike of pity, believes that loving one’s neighbor requires power and is life-affirming. “The ascetic priest thereby prescribes, when he prescribes ‘love thy neighbor’[15], what is actually the arousal of the strongest, most life-affirming impulse, albeit in the most cautious does, -the will to power.”[xlviii] If ‘love thy neighbor’ is an arousal of a strong life-affirming impulse, then it is not a stretch to imagine that, in the instances when pity is a precondition to love, pity is in accordance with the life-affirming will to power. It is close-minded of Nietzsche to think that pity can only preserve weakness.

            Faith in a world beyond is another potentially life-affirming aspect of Christianity that Nietzsche mischaracterizes as purely life-denying. Nietzsche’s argument that belief in a world beyond leads to nihilism has been discussed previously, but as a reminder, essentially Nietzsche argues that faith in a world beyond distracts a person from the pursuit of a powerful life in which they would affirm their earthly life. The question that needs to be examined is: can a person still seek power and affirm life while at the same time believing in the kingdom of heaven or some other form of an afterlife? It has to be conceded to Nietzsche that in some instances his argument is correct. For example, consider religious sects that perform self-flagellation or suicide bombers, in both instances the pursuit of a perfect state is sought in a world beyond and not in an earthly life. Yet, it is close-minded for Nietzsche to think that all belief in a world beyond leads to a negation of powerful life. It is certainly possible for a person to believe in an afterlife or heaven and be a powerful person, as long as this does not devalue life. This distinction is beautifully portrayed by Dostoevsky[16] in The Brother’s Karamazov in the contrast between Father Zosima and Father Ferrapont. The former is depicted as a saintly individual who nevertheless gains great joy from and has great power over his own life, while the latter confines himself in a small room with little food, gains little joy from life, and waits for some reward for his ascetic actions (in the form of the approval of others and a divine sign).

            Paul Tillich offers an interesting possibility for the cohesion of a powerful life-affirming existence and faith. Tillich cites the passage “The Ugliest Human Being” from Thus Spoke Zarathustra in which the ugliest man confesses why he murdered God, and then compares it to a person dealing with the continual presence of God.

“But he- had to die: he saw with eyes that saw everything- he saw the depths and grounds of human beings, all their hidden disgrace and ugliness. His pitying knew no shame: he crawled into my filthiest nook. This most curious, super-obtrusive, super-pitying one had to die. He always saw me: I wanted revenge on such a witness- or to no longer live myself. The god who saw everything, even human beings: this god had to die! Human beings cannot bear that such a witness lives.”[xlix]

The ugly man kills god because he is not able fully to affirm his life. He is ashamed of the way he lives and, rather than summoning the necessary power to reach an existence where he would be able to affirm the presence of a witness that sees everything, he instead kills God. Paul Tillich compares this passage to Psalm 139, which reads, “Where could I go from thy spirit, and where could I flee from Thy Face?”[l] Tillich sees in each instance the desire of man to escape “the inescapable Presence of God.”[li] According to Tillich, the challenge for the man of faith is to be able to affirm this presence. “To endure it is more horrible and difficult than anything else in the world. And yet, to endure it is the only way by which we can attain to the ultimate meaning, joy, and freedom in our lives. Each of us is called to endure. May each of us have the strength and the courage to bear that vocation! For it is to that vocation that we are called as men.”[lii] This is a challenge of magnitude similar to the challenge of the demon in Nietzsche’s parable of the doctrine of eternal recurrence. Tillich sees the challenge confronting men as finding the power to withstand the presence of god while finding ultimate meaning, joy, and freedom in our lives. This is the only kind of faith that can be described as life-affirming in Nietzsche’s sense, one in which the emphasis on living a powerful existence remains.

            The purpose of showing that Nietzsche has mischaracterized pity and faith is to show that what Nietzsche critiques is not an entirely accurate conception of Christianity. However, this does not mean that a reader, due to these misunderstandings on the part of Nietzsche, should fully reject his critiques of Christianity. The questions that should be raised from his analysis are: to what extent is Christianity similar to the Christianity that Nietzsche describes? And, more importantly, what form would Christianity have to take in order to not be susceptible to Nietzsche’s criticism of it as giving rise to nihilistic and weak people?

            Nietzsche’s misunderstandings of Christianity are not limited to empirical Christianity, but also include his notion of ‘true Christianity’. He depicts ‘true Christianity’ as leading to the loss of love for mankind and isolation. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche criticizes ‘true Christianity’ for creating people who cannot love mankind and thus become isolated from mankind. Tracy Strong argues that Nietzsche’s conception of ‘imitatio Christi’ leads to irresolvable isolation because such a life requires individuals to discern for themselves moral values. “Imitatio Christi is possible but only in isolation; it does not permit a common moral horizon.”[liii] Tracy Strong cites the second aphorism of Thus Spoke Zarathusta as evidence that Nietzsche thinks that even the saint who lives like Jesus can only do so in isolation. In this aphorism the saint has, paradoxically, so mastered his love for mankind that he must live in the woods, where he ultimately, as a result of his love for mankind, trades his love for imperfect mankind with love for God. “‘Why’, asked the saint, ‘did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much? Now I love God: human beings I do not love. Human beings are too imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.”[liv] Nietzsche’s depiction of the saint in the woods who loses his love for mankind reflects his misunderstanding of Christian neighbor love. How is it that Nietzsche’s conception of the life of this ‘true Christian’, which is supposed to be a life modeled after Jesus, is marked by isolation from and contempt for humankind when Jesus’ message[17] in the Gospels is antithetical to this? The reason for this is that there is a fundamental problem with the way in which Nietzsche’s strong man exists.

 

PROBLEMS INHERENT IN NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN

            It is difficult to dispute the powerful capabilities of Nietzsche’s Overman. The Overman is based on the premise that a person should continually accumulate power. However, the Overman is incapable of living within a communal framework. This is due to the absence of values that would lead the Overman to have any meaningful interaction with other humans. This is problematic because the idea of isolation in any conception of a perfected state is unsatisfying because it eliminates all the joys of existing with other people. The reason for the isolation of the Overman is a result of his poor understanding of neighbor-love and his rejection of human equality.

            Though Nietzsche recognizes the arousal of the will to power in neighborly love, his conception of neighborly love adds the prerequisite of self-perfection. This causes a person to be turned into him or herself rather than into contact with another person. “You cannot stand yourselves and do not love yourselves enough: now you want to seduce your neighbor to love and gild yourselves with his error. I wish you were unable to stand all these neighbors and their neighbors, then you would have to create your friend and his overflowing heart out of yourself.”[lv] Preliminarily this may seem like an empowering quote about how to grow to love oneself while loving one’s neighbor, but based on the way Zarathustra lives (he continually retreats into his cave) it is actually a call to perfect oneself first, a task that most men are incapable of even undertaking.

This reveals a fundamental problem with Nietzsche’s conception of a perfected human state. Even though Nietzsche does not see it as a problem, any conception of a perfected human state in which many people are expected to fail is imperfect. In Christianity[18] everybody is given the hope of living the perfected Christly life, are forgiven when they fail, and given the chance to try again. In Nietzsche’s system, when people cannot sufficiently overcome their weaknesses, they are left to perish. They are left to perish because of the absence of pity on the part of the powerful. Nietzsche thinks that naturally a few strong men will emerge, even if it requires the failure of everyone else. Such an attitude creates isolation of strong men and breeds disinterest and even hatred of the rest of humankind.

There is something revolting in the idea that a person pursues singular human perfection while not caring about the rest of humankind. Nietzsche does not want human equality, however this is not an excuse to disregard the rest of humankind for the existence of a few people who have reached the perfected human state of Overman. Nietzsche will not budge on the issue of equality.

“We, to whom the democratic movement counts not just as a form of decay or political organization but as the form of decay, namely diminution, of man, as a way of leveling him down and lowering his value: where must we reach out with our hopes?… The total degeneration of man right down to what appears today, to socialist idiots and numbskulls, as their ‘man of the future’ –as their ideal! – this degeneration and diminution of man to the perfect herd animal (or, as they say, to the man in a ‘free society’), this bestialization of man into a dwarf animal of equal rights and claims is possible, there is no doubt!”[lvi]

Certainly this argument has some merit. DeToqueville similarly argues in Democracy in America that equality of men can make everybody equally mediocre at the expense of the existence of great men. Nietzsche would rather witness a few powerful men arise and the weak perish than everybody equally exist as merely herd animals. But I would argue that equality has more merit than Nietzsche is willing to grant. In a tightly-knit community based on equality, greater quality of life for all becomes the common goal of the community. Rather than crossing over from a weaker state to a more powerful state alone, a community can attempt such a task together. The naturally stronger members of the community will help the weaker members, and a more perfect existence can be the goal for everybody, not just the few. Such a community is present in Christianity in the form of the church congregation where the health of the individual and the group are considered equally important. The rejection of human equality has lead the Overman to an isolated existence, and this must be considered a flaw.

The Overman’s natural tendency toward isolation should be better described in order to understand why it is so problematic. Nietzsche’s qualifications for love of one’s neighbors reserve it for the already perfected few, the people who have already crossed over to Overman. This is a bit paradoxical because what need or desire could Nietzsche’s Overman, a person fully-practiced in self-overcoming and whose power grew out of total self-sufficiency, possibly have for neighborly love? Why would a person who gained his power through such isolated practices suddenly have any need for neighborly love, especially when the state of Overman is not an end state but rather a state that requires continued self-overcoming?

            In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche suggests an alternative form of an existence in the aphorism that follows the rejection of the isolated ‘true Christian’. “I teach you the Overman. Human being is something that must be overcome.”[lvii] Nietzsche alludes to the Overman often, but never sufficiently to satisfy the curious reader who wants to know what form the Overman takes[19]. However, there are hints, such as the statement that human being is something that must be overcome to reach the state of Overman. “Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman.”[lviii] A human being reaches this state through constant self-overcoming. “Ten times a day you must overcome yourself, that makes for a good weariness and is poppy for the soul. Ten times you must reconcile yourself again with yourself… Ten truths you must find by day…”[lix] Reaching the state of Overman requires much inquiry and is a difficult task. But in such a self-oriented path, is not the Overman subject to the same criticisms as Nietzsche makes against the saintly ‘true Christian’ living in the woods?

            Karl Barth makes a compelling argument that Nietzsche’s conception of the Overman is flawed because it leads to isolation. Barth’s criticism is that Nietzsche’s Overman is guilty of misanthropy, which in turn creates the necessity for his isolation. Barth cites as evidence a passage from Ecce Homo where Nietzsche writes, “My humanity does not consist in sympathizing with people as they are, but instead in putting up with the fact that I sympathize with them… My humanity is a constant self-overcoming. -But I need solitude, by which I mean recovery, a return to myself, the breath of a free, light playful air…”[lx] Barth criticizes Nietzsche for either being unable to escape his misanthropy, or only being able to escape misanthropy by what he terms ‘azure isolation’. For Barth it is not misanthropy alone that leads to Nietzsche’s Overman being destined to isolation, but also that the task of constant self-overcoming with the hope of one day crossing from animal all the way to Overman is too rigorous.

“The new thing in Nietzsche was the man of ‘azure isolation,’ six thousand feet above time and man; the man to whom a fellow-creature drinking at the same well is quite dreadful and insufferable; the man who is utterly inaccessible to others, having no friends and despising women; the man who is at home with the eagles and strong winds; the man whose only possible environment is desert and wintry landscape, the man beyond good and evil, who can exist only as a consuming fire.”[lxi]

In this passage Barth depicts the undertakings necessary to become an Overman as isolating a person. Barth is not denying that Nietzsche’s Overman is willing to confront all the difficulties of life and existence, but rather he is questioning the ability of the Overman to co-exist with other men. Barth operates from the assumption that the “we have to rule out the possibility of humanity without the fellow-man.”[20][lxii] Though Nietzsche may not concede that his Overman is incapable of existence with ‘the fellow-man’, he also does not desire a state of humanity that leads to isolation. Evidence of this can be seen in the previous discussion of Nietzsche’s criticism of people who believe in worlds beyond. Nietzsche is wary of such people because he fears that this causes a de-emphasis on life, which results in the inability of people to have common goals.[21]

When the criticism that Nietzsche’s Overman is destined to isolation is considered in light of what Zarathustra says to his disciples, it can be seen that the path of self-overcoming results in rejection of everybody around oneself. Zarathustra speaks to his disciples, “Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.”[lxiii] Nietzsche erroneously assumes that this isolation of man can be overcome by the fact they share a common goal of greater power. “And one day again you shall become my friends and children of a single hope; then I shall be with you a third time, to celebrate the great noon with you.”[lxiv] However, how much union can there be among people who individually pursue a common goal, especially when Nietzsche allows for such a multiplicity of paths to reach that goal? “There are a thousand paths that have never yet been walked; a thousand healths and hidden islands of life. Human being and human earth are still unexhausted and undiscovered.”[lxv] Barth’s criticism must be taken seriously because it is unclear how individuals trained to practice self-overcoming and to travel individual paths to get there will be able to exist within any form of society or be able to have any communal feeling. Zarathustra himself, despite at the end of the book emerging triumphantly from his cave and announcing that the great noon has come[22], continually retreats to his cave and solitude. The book ends at the time of the great noon before offering any description of what the great noon will look like. Perhaps this is because Nietzsche does not want such a state of existence to be prescriptive, however it is also possible that there is no description because Nietzsche himself cannot offer an adequate description of how the powerful man like Zarathustra can live in any sort of community.

 

OVERMAN AND ‘TRUE CHRISTIAN’ DIALECTIC

            As mentioned before, the link necessary for a dialectic between Nietzsche’s Overman and an ideal form of ‘true Christianity’ is the respective conceptions of human perfection. I have argued above that each system has significant flaws. The Overman is a being that exists at the expense of and outside of the rest of humankind.  Nietzsche’s criticisms of Christianity show that it is conducive towards the adoption of nihilistic values. Due to these flaws, the conception of human perfection that each system offers is insufficient. I intend to argue that a potential remedy to each problem can be attained through an incorporation of the other’s strengths. I am suggesting that the Overman’s isolation can be overcome with an incorporation of some of the Christian values that encourage communal feeling and that Christianity’s tendency towards nihilism can be remedied through an infusion of the Overman’s life-affirming principles. This will lead to a less flawed conception of human perfection, a way of living that is sufficiently powerful to affirm life while at the same time not denying man the ability to love and coexist with fellow humans.

            The reason such a synthesis can be undertaken is because Nietzsche has already started the process in creating his own notion of ‘true Christianity’. He infused his conception of Jesus with the Overman’s life-affirming and powerful instincts. However, he unfairly does not let the opposite process occur. Nietzsche is unwilling to let the positive aspects of Christianity enter into his conception of the Overman. Thus, the task of infusing Nietzsche’s Oveman with certain Christian practices is to complete a cycle that Nietzsche himself started.

It has been shown that Nietzsche’s conception of the Overman has a flaw that prevents him from co-existing with other people and working toward common goals. In Barth’s article, he makes the case that Nietzsche should be rejected due to this flaw. However, perhaps unknowingly, Barth offers a plausible remedy for this flaw. Barth thinks that most of Nietzsche’s problems with Christianity stem from the fact that Nietzsche’s Overman is unable to exist with his fellow men.

“Christianity places before the superman the Crucified, Jesus, as the Neighbor, and in the person of Jesus a whole host of others who are wholly and utterly ignoble and despised in the eyes of the world (of the world of Zarathustra, the true world of men), the hungry and thirsty and naked and sick and captive, a whole ocean of human meanness and painfulness… [Christianity] wills that he should recognize in them his neighbors and himself.”[lxvi]

Barth is referring to the aspects within Christianity, like the call to neighborly love and the practice of pity, that force a person to interact and appreciate one’s fellow man. Barth postulates that part of the reason Nietzsche rejects Christianity is that the Overman will fail if called to confront his fellow man; that the Overman will only be able to feel misanthropy or the need to retreat into solitude. This is because the Overman that Nietzsche has created is supposed to have an aversion to Christian neighbor love and pity and cannot use them as a tool to interact with his fellow man. I am arguing that neighbor love and pity (conceived of in a non-nihilistic lifting-up sense, as discussed earlier) can be incorporated into the Overman without sacrificing his quest for greater power. This is as opposed to Barth who thinks the Overman can only fail if called to confront his fellow man.

How can the concepts of neighborly love and pity have utility for the Overman and thus create a less flawed conception of a perfected human state? The crossing over from animal to Overman (Nietzsche calls the form of existing between the two as ‘human’) is a difficult task. Nietzsche is comfortable with the few succeeding at the expense of the many weak. Even if one ignores[23] the problematic nature of a system in which the majority of people are expected to fail and all that matters is the eventual existence of the strongest men, there is still a role for neighbor love and pity to have for a person ‘crossing over’ to the state of an Overman. The reason is because crossing over requires continually completing difficult tasks[24]. People attempting this crossing over would benefit from somebody who had already reached the state of Overman helping them, encouraging them, and supporting them. If the Overman did not ignore his natural inclination towards pity of a fellow being struggling, then he would be compelled to offer this help to his fellow man. This form of pity would not be a preservation of weakness, but rather a lifting up of a fellow man to a state of greater strength.

People attempting to reach the state of Overman would be better served with Christian neighbor love than Nietzsche’s conception of neighbor love in their attempts to cross over. Christian neighbor love is such that people feel genuine compassion for their fellow man, as opposed to Nietzsche’s conception where neighbor love only serves as a resistive force that drives a person back into introspection, self-overcoming, and self-perfection. “In one’s friend one should have one’s best enemy. You should be closest to him in heart when you resist him.”[lxvii] The implication of this is that neighborly love is the opposite of support, and a person practicing neighborly love should do his best to drive his neighbor away back into isolation.

Another benefit of Overmen practicing neighborly love and pity is that it would diminish ressentiment and the transvaluation of values. Transvaluation, according to Nietzsche, occurs because of the weak hating the strong, which leads to the weak defining their strong enemies as evil, and defining ‘good’ as the opposite of the strong, namely themselves. What if the strong practiced love of their neighbor to the extent that the weak were incapable of hating them? Nietzsche almost makes this point, suggesting that the strong are in fact capable of loving their weak enemies.

“To be unable to take his enemies, his misfortunes and even his misdeeds seriously for long- that is the sign of the strong, rounded natures with a superabundance of a power which is flexible, formative, healing and can make one forget… A man like this shakes with one shrug, many worms which would have burrowed into another man; actual ‘love of your enemies’ is also possible here and here alone… For he insists on having his enemy to himself, as a mark of distinction…”[lxviii]

Yet, even here, this ‘love’ of the enemies is not meant in the sense of Christian love.[25] The strong man here loves his enemies because it is a ‘mark of distinction’ for his own strength, not because he desires to uplift the weak to the realm of the strong, and not because he at all pities the weak. If the strong were able to pity and then love the weak, then there would be less hatred on the part of the weak and less willingness to call the people stronger than them their enemies. Perhaps, if the strong practiced Christian neighbor love, the weak would instead feel admiration for and desire to become strong.

            In addition to translating Christian practice into Nietzsche’s Overman, the equivalent task of adapting some of the Overman’s power seeking practices into Christianity can be performed, and this dialectic will result in the same conception of human perfection. As has been asked before, what form must Christianity take to not be susceptible to these criticisms?

            In order to avoid Nietzsche’s criticisms, Christians must live in such a way that they can acquire the strength and power to affirm life. They must be able to meet the challenge of the demon in eternal recurrence. Paul Tillich’s essay contains a great example of how a Christian could conceive of his or her faith and still affirm life. Tillich writes about the challenge of finding the courage and strength to live with the ‘inescapable presence of God’. Here faith is not a passive belief in an other-worldly redemption, but rather an active component whereby one must continually overcome the desire to shut God out of one’s life. Such a task requires a person to continually acquire the necessary fortitude to affirm such a presence. This is reminiscent of the Overman’s task: to continually practice self-overcoming and the discovery of new truths. Thus, the Christian trying to maintain a life-affirming faith would benefit from the Overman’s practice of accumulating greater power.

            Henri Birault writes an essay called “Beatitude in Nietzsche” in which he demonstrates how a Christian could strive for beatitude[26] and still be a life-affirmer in Nietzsche’s mind. Birault argues that Nietzsche is only critical of people who seek a ‘lazy’ or uncreative beatitude. “The beatitude that the unhappy man wishes to attain is that vesperal beatitude that Nietzsche calls an ideal state of laziness… those essentially reclining philosophers.”[lxix] Nietzsche does not want people to live stagnant lives. The Overman is not an end state. Even the Overman must continually practice self-overcoming, skepticism, and the accumulation of strength and power. Birault focuses on a particular passage where Nietzsche writes, “What must I do to be happy? That I know not, but I say to you: Be happy, and then do what you please.”[lxx] The key word for Birault here is ‘do’. Beatitude, in order to not be rejected by Nietzsche, must be a state of action and creation. Thus Birault proposes the idea of a ‘Dionysian’ beatitude, a beatitude that is not an end state, but rather an eternally affirming state.

“In this Dionysian beatitude, necessity is reconciled with chance, eternity with the instant, being with becoming- but all that outside of time, its lengths, its progress, its moments, its mediations. Speaking of this ‘recapitulation,’ in which the world of becoming comes extremely close to that of being- a ‘recapitulation’ that the doctrine of the Eternal Return alone can accomplish- we see that it is not for nothing that Nietzsche calls it the ‘high point of the meditation.’”[lxxi]

Birault is arguing for an infusion of Eternal Recurrence into the conception of beatitude. Thus the ‘end goal’ of beatitude is not an end at all, but rather a continual re-affirmation of life. Such a conception of beatitude puts the emphasis of life not in a world beyond, but rather continually on a powerful life. A person must continually find the power necessary to meet this challenge, and this source of power can simultaneously come from their natural instinct to accumulate power and their faith.

 

CONCLUSION

            Nietzsche has effectively shown that there are certain aspects of Christianity that can lead to a nihilistic existence. When ascertaining what constitutes an acceptable conception of human perfection, an existence marked by nihilism cannot be considered. This is because ultimately it will result in a state where life cannot be affirmed, much less willed to be eternally repeated. However, the error Nietzsche makes is assuming that all practices of Christianity (other than his own conception of ‘true Christianity’) will lead to a nihilistic existence. Paul Tillich has conceived of a type of faith in which a person is constantly challenged to accumulate strength so that they can affirm God’s presence. Tillich’s faith satisfies Nietzsche’s requirement of power-seeking and striving to live the most powerful life one could possible live.  In the specific case of Tillich, it has been shown that Christianity can be infused with Nietzschean power to create a satisfactory end goal of human existence.

            The equivalent process of infusing the Overman with Christian values that will remedy its isolation is not performed, in part because Nietzsche so vehemently swears off Christian neighbor love and pity. However, this is because he has misunderstood the potential for power in these Christian practices. The victim of this misunderstanding is the Overman, whose isolated existence is pointed to as a sign of its inadequacy to represent a goal that humans should strive towards. Yet, the Overman, as has been shown, has many valuable aspects that help remedy the tendencies toward nihilism. For this reason it should not be discarded. Rather, if Christian neighbor love and pity are allowed to be incorporated into the Overman, despite Nietzsche’s misguided protestations, then the Overman will not be prone to the Christian critics who maintain that life in isolation must be rejected.

            After a careful study of how Nietzsche’s thought and Christianity will require a person to live their lives, one way does not have to be picked in favor of the other. Ultimately, the most satisfying conception of a state of human perfection to which a person could strive comes from a fusion of the strengths and removal of the weaknesses of each. Ideally, the conception of human perfection that results is one in which a person can live a noble and powerful life while still allowing for meaningful communal existence with fellow men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Throughout this paper the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ are not used interchangeably. ‘Jesus’ refers to the man detached from any Christian interpretation and ‘Christ’ refers to the Christian conception of their savior.

[2] Thus, when true Christianity is referred to in throughout this paper, it refers to Nietzsche’s conception of a non-nihilistic life practice based on Jesus’ life.

[3] Nietzsche refers to Paul this way throughout The Anti-Christ

[4] It is worth noting that many of Nietzsche’s etymological findings are wrong. Rather than the accuracy of his etymology, we should focus on his idea of a fall from an era where the ‘good’ people were analogous to noble and strong actions.

[5] This rhymes in the German. Furthermore, the ellipsis is Nietzsche’s and serves as an ominous foreshadowing of the link he sees between the two.

[6] When Nietzsche talks about the sick and the healthy, it is roughly synonymous with the weak and the strong

[7] The connection between Nietzsche’s ‘eternal recurrence’ and Jesus’ message will be discussed later

[8] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 30

[9] It is important to remember here what Nietzsche means by a redeemer: “this, and this alone, is the psychological reality of ‘redemption’. -A new way of life, not a new faith…” (The Anti-Christ, 31) So by redeemer he is making no reference to forgiveness of sins.

[10] Obviously, this is not the Gospel version of what Jesus said on the cross. The Gospels say that ‘then you will be in paradise’. Nietzsche is here creating a fictional account of how he believes the only Christian, Jesus, should have acted if he were to be a paradigm of life-affirmation.

[11] Nietzsche makes the distinction that Jesus died for his own guilt as a lawbreaker, not for the guilt of others. (The Anti-Christ, 25)

[12] See the earlier discussion of how in Nietzsche’s Jesus the link between God and man is abolished, which Alitzer interprets as being synonymous to a world in which God is dead

[13] “Christianity is called the religion of pity.” (The Anti-Christ, 6)

[14] “It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master… as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength.” (On the Genealogy of Morality, 26).

[15] Nietzsche’s conception of neighbor love will be discussed at a later point.

[16] Nietzsche read and wrote and essay on The Brother’s Karamazov. He also had a deep appreciation for Dostoevsky, calling him the only psychologist he ever learned from.

[17] Specifically, the call to love and actively help one’s neighbor.

[18] If one sheds the notion of original sin, which Nietzsche would be inclined to do for the sake of life-affirmation.

[19] This is not a fault of Nietzsche, but rather due to the nature of the Overman. Great spirits are skeptics that practice self-overcoming, which is an individual process. As Zarathustra states, “I need living companions who follow me because they want to follow themselves- wherever I want.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 14). The goal is the Overman, but it is an individual journey. The path cannot be prescribed, but rather must be discerned for oneself.

[20] This idea will be discussed at greater length in the final section. Here Barth is stating that a conception of humanity in which a person cannot interact with his fellow man is an inadequate conception and requires repostulation.

[21] See block quote on page 8

[22] “This is my morning, my day is beginning: up now, up, you great noon!” Thus spoke Zarathustra and he left his cave, glowing and strong, like a morning sun that emerges from dark mountains.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 266)

[23] Yet, this problem should not be ignored, see the previous discussion on why this is so problematic

[24] As a reminder: “Ten times a day you must overcome yourself, that makes for a good weariness and is poppy for the soul. Ten times you must reconcile yourself again with yourself… Ten truths you must find by day…” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 18).”

[25] Nietzsche puts ‘love of your enemies’ in quotes and italicizes love, which suggests he is playing on the concept of loving one’s enemies seen in the gospels.

[26] In the discussion of Birault’s essay, beatitude means a perfected human state that Christians strive towards

 

---

[i] Nietzsche, The Anti-Chritt, 66.

[ii] Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sec. 252, quoted on Barth, Church Dogmatics, 368.

[iii] Kauffman, , 367.

[iv] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 4.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid., 6.

[vii] Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality. First Essay: ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad’, 11

[viii] Ibid., 13.

[ix] Ibid.,  22

[x] Ibid.,  25

[xi] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 62.

[xii] Ibid., 40.

[xiii] Ibid., 50-51.

[xiv] Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality. Third Essay: what do ascetic ideals mean?, 104.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 48.

[xviii] Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, 150

[xix] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 40.

[xx] Ibid., 39-40.

[xxi] Kung, Nietzsche: What Christians and Non-Christians Can Learn, 345.

[xxii] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 35.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 37.

[xxvi] Ibid., 42.

[xxvii] Ibid., 39.

[xxviii] Ibid., 38.

[xxix] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 44.

[xxx] Ibid.

[xxxi] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 25.

[xxxii] Kung, Does God Exist?, 343.

[xxxiii] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 31.

[xxxiv] Ibid., 32.

[xxxv] Ibid., 30.

[xxxvi] Strong, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration, 124.

[xxxvii] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 15-16.

[xxxviii] Strong, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration, 124, quotes Nietzsche, Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, VII: 350.

[xxxix] Ibid., 31

[xl] Ibid., 38.

[xli] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 32.

[xlii] Strong, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration, 261.

[xliii] Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 341, quoted from Alitzer, Eternal Recurrence and the Kingdom of God, 241

[xliv] Alitzer, Eternal Recurrence and the Kingdom of God, 242.

[xlv] Ibid., 245.

[xlvi] Kung, Does God Exist?, 345.

[xlvii] Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 6.

[xlviii] Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, 100

[xlix] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 215-216

[l] Tillich, The Escape From God, 173.

[li] Ibid.

[lii] Ibid., 179.

[liii] Strong, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration, 125-126.

[liv] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 2

[lv] Ibid., 45

[lvi] Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 152-153.

[lvii] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 5.

[lviii] Ibid., 7.

[lix] Ibid., 18

[lx] Nietzsche, Ecce Home, 83.

[lxi] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 370

[lxii] Ibid., 353

[lxiii] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 59

[lxiv] Ibid.

[lxv] Ibid., 58

[lxvi] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 371

[lxvii] Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 41

[lxviii] Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, 22

[lxix] Birault, Beatitude in Nietzsche, 227.

[lxx] Ibid., 222, quotes Nietzsche, Sämtliche Werke in zwölf Bönden, XII; part II.

[lxxi] Ibid,, 230, quotes Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 617.

 

 

Bibliography

Alitzer, Thomas J. J. “Eternal Recurrence and Kingdom of God.” In The New Nietzsche,   edited by David B. Allison, 219-231. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1985.

Barth, Karl. “Church Dogmatics.” In Studies in Nietzsche and the Judaeo-Christian            Tradition, edited by James C. O’Flaherty, Timothy F. Sellner, and Robert M.     Helm, 353-374. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Birault, Henri. “Beatitude in Nietzsche.” In The New Nietzsche, edited by David B.          Allison, 219-231. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1985.

Kung, Hans. “Does God Exist?” In Studies in Nietzsche and the Judaeo-Christian Tradition, edited by James C. O’Flaherty, Timothy F. Sellner, and Robert M.         Helm, 341-352. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Anti-Christ. Edited by Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman.            Translated by Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, Ecce Homo. Edited by Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman. Translated            by Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Edited by Adrian Del Caro and Robert       Pippin. Translated by Adrian Del Caro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morality. Edited by Keith Ansell-Pearson.        Translated by Carol Diethe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, Beyond Good and Evil. Edited by Keith Ansell-Pearson. Translated by Carol Diethe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Strong, Tracy B. Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration. Urbana:    University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Tillich, Paul. “The Escape from God.” In Nietzsche and the Gods, edited by Weaver          Santaniello, 172-180. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.

Some Thoughtful Quotes

“I find it painful but necessary to make a radical choice at this point between the church and the gospel. At the center of the tradition of the church has been the doctrine of vicarious atonement and the encouragement of a passive-dependent life-style. I reject this magical view of salvation. But there is a gospel the church has seldom seen and perhaps is systematically prevented from seeing by the necessity to maintain an organization. Dostoevski captures its essence in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor. The Good News is: ‘You are free and you will find yourself becoming graceful as you assume the responsibility for yourself and others.’ It is increasingly my experience that the dignity of human life resides in its potential for radical freedom. Each human being is free to choose how he will feel about and be in the world. No saviors are necessary to confer this freedom. We need, rather, witnesses who will be lucid in their acceptance of the universal human birthright of the gift of radical freedom.”

- Sam Keen, “To A Dancing God”

Thoughts on “Going Green” (or not)

Here’s a thoughtful, interesting article about why “Going Green” (e.g. making minor personal energy consumption reduction choices) is really a silly, overly trendy, misinformed and ineffective way to actually bring about global (or even local) environmental change. See the link here: http://ow.ly/gUdq. Now, I’m still of course a big fan of living simply (though not just for the environmental reasons) and I think it’s awesome when people make decisions to live more simply for genuine, caring reasons (not because it’s trendy/cool, which the cynical side of me says is many people’s biggest reason). I also think it would be rather hypocritical/hollow sounding if someone campaigned for enacting broad environmental change initiatives and drove a Hummer for example. So personal lifestyle changes are important. However, using air conditioning or leaving a light on in a room once in awhile isn’t that big of a deal…this article helps explain why.

Thoughts are welcome…

A God for the Weak and Downtrodden: Thoughts on a Theology of Disabilities

Recently, I returned from Camp Barnabus Texas – a Christian camp that works with kids (well actually people with a wide range of ages) with disabilities. It was a fun, crazy, ridiculous time hanging out with special needs kids (which I had never done much of before) and getting to know good people all around. My camper was a 23-year-old, 180lb black male with severe autism/OCD, etc. who was hilarious/wonderful in his constant repeating of funny phrases and nonstop wandering along with his OCD tendencies to have to pick things up and straighten shoes, etc.

While the camp was very, very conservative Evangelical in its belief system (it’s the middle of nowhere Texas after all) so I didn’t connect with much of the theology/religion there, the experience nonetheless got me thinking that a  theology/philosophy of disabilities would be really interesting to develop/reflect upon. Plenty of issues are raised such as “Did God mean for this or that child to have that disability or was it an accident or a product of evil/imperfection in the world?” and ”How should one approach speaking about religious issues with people with disabilities who have the mental capacity of a young child or should they speak about them at all?” Questions of the relationship or lack thereof between science and religion also come into view among other things. Needless to say, it’s a deep issue and one that deserves considerable attention.

Certainly the idea of the ‘imago dei’ is important here – all human beings being made in the image of God has an incredible depth of meaning for people with special needs. This theological idea is a powerful argument against every form of social Darwinism that would say the weak and ‘deformed’ should be extinguished and gives each and every human being remarkable worth and value (although I also think the value of human beings is inherent in and of itself without having to be contingent on an external religious belief system – still the theological basis is valuable to consider as well).

Along with the idea of the imago dei, the idea of the Incarnation comes in on the other side. God becoming man and revealing the humanity of God, in all human glory and weakness. Central to this message is that God understands human suffering as well as human joy and everything in between – in other words, God gets it. Now obviously, Jesus most likely wasn’t autistic nor did he probably have Down’s Syndrome but he did heal many people ‘possessed by demons’ and with other ailments. He was clearly sensitive to such issues and healing and transformation were key signs in his mission as related by the Gospel writers. Such acts connect deeply to the issue of disabilities as do the Gospel writers’ clear demonstrations of Jesus’ care for the weak and downtrodden of society along with the revealing of God’s closeness to humanity.

One story in the gospels of particular interest for this issue is the one of the man who was blind from birth located in John 9. In this story, Jesus upended the popular wisdom of his day (an idea still very latent in many theologies/thinking today) that God was punishing the blind man for his own or his parents’ sins - rather Jesus said, sins had nothing to do the man’s condition and he still had incredible value and purpose even though he was blind (and Jesus then also healed him of his blindness). The man was not to be ignored nor condemned nor looked down upon. Jesus struck against the idea of cosmic karma – at least in the sense that one’s parents’ or one’s own sins determined a future physical ailment/divine punishment (although admittedly in other passages forgiveness of sins/physical healing by Jesus seem to go hand in hand – though I think this points more towards Jesus’ recognition of the unified physical/psycho-spiritual nature of human beings rather than a cosmic punishment scheme). For Jesus in this story at least, the sin = a disability connection was invalid and what mattered was the value and potentiality of the individual human being – with or without a disability.

Much of what was emphasized at Camp Barnabus was God’s strength and conversely human weakness, depravity and dependence on God (e.g. ‘before God we’re all like special needs campers’). Contrary to that sentiment, I would instead emphasize something far more positive about humanity that comes out through working with people with disabilities – the human capacity for love, grace and patience towards those less capable as well as the love and joy expressed by people with disabilities. Beyond that, there are many other lessons we can learn by interacting with people with disabilities; to appreciate the simple things in life, give more hugs to people, stop trying to hyper-control everything in life, etc. – the list goes on. This last week at Camp Barnabus was a challenging, growing experience for me – one that I’m very grateful for and I hope to continue reflecting on the issues it brought to my mind and heart.

As always, I appreciate any and all thoughts on the matter…

“Ye must become like little children…”

Jesus is recorded as saying that one of the essential elements of the kingdom of heaven is to “…become like little children.”

So in honor of this oft-quoted passage, I thought I’d offer some brief thoughts on child-like-ness and coming home to that inner child within that I believe every person has (though it may and does take many different names).

There’s a clever paradox of sorts in Jesus’ words, because children generally make no self-aware effort to ‘become’ the way they naturally are. And this natural element of child-like-ness is essential to a healthy religion and a healthy view of the world. Being excited about a beautiful summer day, or building a giant tower with legos,  doing ridiculous things, creating beautiful art – all of these and much more are great examples of letting one’s inner child-like-ness loose in the world. The inner child’s energy and capacity for creativity is phenomenal.

One can just look around to find people whose inner child is unfortunately damaged, imprisoned, trapped, hurt, etc. People who hate their jobs yet still work 70 hours a week, parents who don’t let their children read the Harry Potter series out of a fear of witchcraft, pastors and politicians who hide and repress their sexual feelings for years, only to have them revealed in an explosive affair, etc. etc. People living this way are sadly all too common.

Rather than always pretending to be good, uber-responsible grown-ups (which is important in its own right within limits), it’s good to let one’s inner child play once in a while. I believe Jesus recognized this importance - (despite being centuries removed from the development of inner-child psychology) – hence his injunction to cultivate child-like-ness.

Of course, it’s important to recognize a distinct difference between being child-like and being childish.  True, right and good religion promotes child-like wonder and joy instead of childish magical thinking or rule-based acting. There’s a big difference.

Sam Keen (a great author if you get a chance to read him) says that “It may be that homecoming is the secularized or deparochialized equivalent of what Christians traditionally mean by ‘justification by faith’…in divorcing salvation from achievement, the Christian had established the priority of being over doing.”

Homecoming is his (and many others) word to describe the process of getting back in touch with one’s inner child and finding peace in the present. Grace is central to this process because at the heart of the genuine child experience is an element of abundant grace – a sense that the world and one’s presence in the world is acceptable, OK, fine, wonderful, good and even irreplaceable and utterly and beautifully unique. A sense that being in the world is indeed far more important than anything one does in the world; that one cannot and should not even try to earn one’s place in the order of things through what they do.

Children are (under normal, healthy circumstances) OK with just being in the world; the laundry list of things to do, to become, to fix, to change, to accomplish, etc. tends to pop up later down the road and can take all sort of clever disguises. Recapturing this element of grace, wonder and self-acceptance is at the heart of Jesus’ words to become like little children. Take the time to get in touch with your inner child-like-ness, whether through art, meditation, walking around in a forest, playing video games or whatever works for you – even if it seems ridiculous (the silliness is probably part of the point). Yet keep in mind that often those moments where it all clicks seem to come when we least expect them – in situations one could never craft or plan or predict. And, I suppose that’s the way it should be - one defining characteristic of the grand mystery.

Finally another post!

I apologize for the loooong delay in posts (to my two or so semi-regular blog visitors at least). As of late, I’ve briefly thought about deleting my blog, but decided rather to remove/modify a couple of posts and start out from here on trying to craft a blog with a more positive, more hopeful, less negative and less bitter overall tone. I think that will be better.

Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about Obama’s graduation day speech at Notre Dame? It generated tremendous controversy and tons of  petitions – not to mention numerous hecklers who had to be removed from the event…In my mind, inviting Obama was an excellent step for the university to take in order to encourage diverse opinions and dialogue, but perhaps giving him an honorary doctorate wasn’t the right step? What are your thoughts?

Ah, the joys of public service

Now, many, many more people may get to experience it. The Kennedy-Hatch Service Bill just passed the Senate on Thursday and seeks to more than triple the service core to over 250,000 members as well as increase the educational stipend volunteers receive. The bill also creates a new “corps” focused on health care, clean energy, education and disaster response. See more information here: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12003930.

In related news, AmeriCorps applications are up 208% or so from this same period last year…no doubt the economy is the major factor in this increase (I personally know a couple of people who are in AmeriCorps now largely because of the current economic situation), coupled with Obama’s increased emphasis on National Service. It seems that National Service is taking over the world…now if only AmeriCorps could get the kind of marketing program/budget that the U.S. military has…haha, fat chance.

Leaving the Fold: Inner Child Healing

I’m going to combine the next two chapters of ‘Leaving the Fold’ into one post, hitting the highlights. These upcoming chapters will be far more positive and constructive than my previous ones, which will hopefully be good and refreshing.

Winell starts the chapter on “The Damaged Inner Child” by talking about the concept of visualizing one’s ‘inner child’ – a pyscho-spiritual exercise that I’ve found quite empowering and healing and apparently many others have as well. Essentially, she argues that “A precious part within you is childlike in essence” and one needs to care for and work with this inner self in order to grow and heal. Jesus’ words on the need to ‘become like little children’ certainly come to mind here, although I realize it’s a stretch to think that he was directly referring to inner child visualization exercises, which are a fairly recent development in psychological circles…

Winell argues that many of the damaging teachings of fundamentalism discussed earlier can contribute to a ‘hurt’ inner child. The goal of the innocent child visualization is to contact this ‘inner little person’ and for the ‘adult’ part of oneself to then start taking care of that inner child. Winell lays out the visualization meditation exercise script and outlines how to best begin communicating and caring for one’s inner self.

Other exercises Winell suggests related to further working with one’s inner child are examing childhood photos, going on a nature walk, spending time with little children, and essentially taking responsibility for the task of “reparenting” your inner child. This process involves taking stock of the hurts your inner child sustained in the past while acknowledging and accepting them with graciousness and caring. Throughout the chapter, Winell constantly pushes for the need for people to develop their own inner wisdom and strength – derived not from an external source, but from within the depths of one’s own being.

For me personally, this process of connecting with my own inner child has been very helpful (although I haven’t been that consistent at taking the time to do it unfortunately – I’m trying to get back on track as of late) and is basically what I would consider the essence of my spirituality right now – although I anticipate my spirituality further developing/changing in the future. When I first did this exercise, I ‘found’ a very frightened, lonely little boy inside myself and through working with and loving on that little boy inside, I believe I started becoming more spontaneous, more fun-loving and more open and confident around people. I’m sure other factors (the love/care/acceptance of friends, changing thought patterns, counseling, etc. etc.) also helped greatly with all those changes/positive steps (and of course, not all the steps I’ve taken have been entirely positive I’m pretty sure), but I do believe these exercises have played a definite role. I’m a fan of them for the time being at least.

Winell continues the inner child theme in the next chapter titled “Inner Healing.” She describes the balance needed between one’s inner child and inner adult. If one or the other dominates the other too much, that person may become overly sensitive and fearful or insensitive and overcontrolled – respectively. She describes additional inner child exercises as well – one where a person ‘checks in’ with how their inner child is feeling throughout the day and keeps a running journal, one that involves creating an art work of how you envision your inner child, one that involves using a doll to represent your inner child and one that involves writing letters to your inner child. I’ve done a few of these exercises (and hope to do more in the future) and found them very helpful (writing in particular helps me, and occasionally artwork can be very cathartic).

Winell then goes on to talk about taking responsibility as the new adult for your inner child. One can let go of staying stuck in the past, trying to get needs met by people who couldn’t or wouldn’t meet them and move into the future by taking care of one’s own needs. Winell then spends a majority of the rest of this chapter describing various life-stage appropriate affirmations that one can tell their inner child in order to replace unhealthy messages one absorbed earlier in life. This ‘replacing’ of negative messages with more positive ones and ‘making up’ for affirmations one missed out on at various stages in their development has been very effective in my own life, particularly when I found myself swamped by self-hating, negative messages during an extra rough period.

All in all, these two chapters were definitely life-giving and empowering for me when I first read them and did some of the exercises Winell mentions.  It felt strange at first to work through these ideas, but I really think it’s been an important component to my growth over the last year-plus, and certainly the process is far from over. Jesus said that we need to become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of God and perhaps Winell touches upon a kernel of that profound truth in these chapters…

Next up is a chapter entitled “Idea Monster”, which I also found very helpful in combating the negative messages/thought patterns one receives from their “Idea Monster.” I’ll conclude with a final encouragement – never underestimate the power of your affirmations – the ones you give to yourself, the ones you speak to little children, to friends, to your significant other/spouse/family members, etc. etc. They can be life-changing and they are always necessary and healing.