(I am pausing from the “Faith Problems” series until I can digest the next area sufficiently. In the meanwhile, I’ll be toying with different parts of Nietzsche’s works.)
It seems that many Christians claim morality. In some case, they even brag about it. Yet, this seems to be a disservice to morality. Why is it that Christians today seem to “play moral” without actually living it? I believe Nietzsche actually has insight into this. But, we must first disregard any prejudices of Nietzsche because, oftentimes, those are based on misconceptions. Instead of going through each prejudice and explaining the point of misconception, it’ll be easier to remove them all and deal with them later.
Nietzsche writes in his preface to The Birth of Tragedy that “Christian teaching…is, and wants to be, only moral and … relegates art, every art to the realm of lies” (BT, 5*). This can be expanded further. I believe Nietzsche is missing one point when it comes to American Evangelicals: most of them want to be seen as being moral, even if it is not the case. The media has given us numerous examples of popular preachers, pastors, etc, all caught in one scandal or another, sometimes in the very thing they preach most strongly against. This is no coincidence. Christians today in America want to display morality even if they lack it.
Humility
Let us take an example that I see frequently: humility. Christians want to be humble. This is not a bad thing (perhaps not what Nietzsche saw as the best goal, but not “wrong”). Yet Christians today, especially those in America, seem to enjoy displaying their lack of humility.
For example, one person I know is a technophile. He loves gadgets and has very expensive toys all over his house. But yet he claims at church groups to be humble. If one were to walk into his house, devoid of any context from him, I believe the exact opposite would be thought. “Simple, humble” people do not tend to live extravagantly, especially to the excess that he does and on the small budget he has. To drive this point home even further, another author here (Thainamu) recently posted a beginning to a series called “Simple Living in the 21st Century.” Just as simple living is a lifestyle and not just a display, so is moral living.
To bring this back to Nietzsche once more, the extravagant living can be associated with the Dionysian** trend. The Dionysian is marked by extreme excess. It is contrasted by the Apollinian (some translators write Apollonian) which is marked by tempered control. Neither can live without the other because one must have an encounter with the excess of the Dionysian in order to harness it in the Apollinian. This is where the practical nature of simple living and morality is born.
* Most of Nietzsche’s work is divided into aphorisms. It is common practice to refer to the aphorism, rather than the page number, because it is the same regardless of translation.
** Later works of Nietzsche redefine Dionysian as something else, which becomes for Nietzsche the highest valuation of life.
“The media has given us numerous examples of popular preachers, pastors, etc, all caught in one scandal or another, sometimes in the very thing they preach most strongly against. This is no coincidence. Christians today in America want to display morality even if they lack it.”
This isn’t just true of Christians in America, it was true of the Apostle Paul.
“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”
This indicates that it usually isn’t “hypocrisy” or “false morality” that gets Christians into trouble (though it can be the reason… 2 Timothy 3). Rather, as Christians, we have to daily fight our sinful nature. I lust, I get sinfully angry, I am selfish. This doesn’t mean I lack morality, it just means that I am a fallen creature who needs God’s mercy and grace and guidance in living a life closer to perfection. As for Christians wanting to “display morality,” this is demanded of us by God. 1 Thessalonians 4:7 “For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.”
Regarding your friend with the gadgets, I probably wouldn’t say he “wasn’t humble” based on his lifestyle. I’d call that something else. I’d use the word humble to describe the realm of how a person relates to another, whether they put themselves above the other person, whether they demand to have their own way, etc. (That was just an aside.)
I don’t know enough about Nietzsche to comment about that directly. I do know that the words “morality” and “ethics” give me problems because of how they are used by both believers and nonbelievers. There can be culturally-defined systems of morality or ethics or right/wrong or acceptable/unacceptable which are completely separate from the work of Christ. There can also be systems that are based on Judeo-Christian culture, but not really following Christ either. Those two things lead to a lot of confusion when we talk about morality. As you mention, the fact that Christians want to display morality is them trying to live up to community expectations, which can be quite apart from obedience to Christ.
(And another aside–what do the links in your first paragraph do? They don’t seem to go anywhere.)
This article is meaningless without first defining your terms. What is “morality”, and what would one expect from a “moral” person. How do the Christian’s you are describing define “morality”, and is their definition the same as that you and Nietzsche hold. When they claim “morality”, are they using a different definition from you? Do they uphold their own definition of morality?
This article seems to fail to establish what it is trying to claim, fails to support any such claim with any substantive argument, and appears to use Nietzsche’s name entirely without need in order to cause perceived conflict. What does “humility” have to do with possessions? The American Heritage dictionary defines it as:
the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one’s own importance, rank, etc.
Does your friend have an immodest self-opinion? Does he hold his own importance or rank over others, believing himself better than those around him? If you are using a different definition than the dictionary, you really need to DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
This article is a meaningless troll which fails to make any discernible point. The author should think a little more about what he wants to say, and try again. A logical structure would be thus:
1) Define what a “moral lifestyle” would look like.
2) Demonstrate that “Christians” (in significant numbers) claim to live the “moral lifestyle” described, or show how their definition of a “moral lifestyle” is invalid or incorrect.
3) Provide an explanation of how “Christians” neglect to live the lifestyle described in number 1.
The article written seems to be jealous of the possessions owned by the “techie friend”, and to twist the authors definition of “moral lifestyle” to mean “not living in excessive comfort” (as defined by the author). I am not aware that many “Christians” define a moral lifestyle as being austere or “simple”, and would be interested to see whether Nietzsche did believe that morality required minimalistic living. I doubt that he did, and suspect that the author is misusing Nietzsche to make points Nietzsche would not have supported.
What Darius said is basically correct. If I may elaborate, let me say this: man is spirit, soul (psyche), and body. The sinful nature that Darius spoke of is the flesh. The law of our fleshly members opposes what is right and always wants to do wrong. So we need to classify the dilemma between right and wrong in the context of human nature rather than American Evangelicals or famous preachers. We’re all in the same boat here.
Humility is simply being in submission to Truth. Its not trying to make one’s self appear poor or simple. You can be filthy rich and be humble. The question is whether you think of yourself more highly or lowly than you ought. Both extremes are pride because they fail to acknowledge reality. A person who pretends to be poor and humble for religion’s sake really is placing his confidence in the flesh, and defeating the whole concept of humility.
“But yet he claims at church groups to be humble.
How does he “claim” to be humble? Does he actually say “I am humble?” Or do you mean that he acts humble while you think his lifestyle and possessions are anything but? If he does the former, I would question how humble he truly is if he has “brags” about his humility to others. If the latter is the case, I would wonder why you feel the need to judge someone’s heart by his outward possessions.
*if he “brags”*
The word humble does have a meaning referring to material goods as in the phrase “of humble circumstances.” I just think of it primarily as speaking to a person’s attitude.
“The word humble does have a meaning referring to material goods as in the phrase “of humble circumstances.” I just think of it primarily as speaking to a person’s attitude.”
Which further proves Atanamis’ point that the author needs to define his terms prior to using them. We had this problem a few weeks ago when he used “Judeo-Christian” in a way that was completely foreign to all of his readers. Or, for that matter, the use of the word “tragic.” I was never quite sure how Abraham was a tragic hero.
This article seems to fail to establish what it is trying to claim, fails to support any such claim with any substantive argument, and appears to use Nietzsche’s name entirely without need in order to cause perceived conflict.
I don’t think your last point here is entirely provable. Chris, I think, is just assuming that the reader has an understanding of Nietzsche’s definitions. I don’t think Nietzsche is brought up simply to cause conflict, but to provide a balance in defining morality.
This article is a meaningless troll which fails to make any discernible point.
I think this is a bit much. I would not call it a troll. I agree with the idea that there should be definitions present but that is only because I am ignorant of Nietzsche. I suspect that if I were familiar with his work - I would see such definitions as a waste of time.
Humility is simply being in submission to Truth. Its not trying to make one’s self appear poor or simple. You can be filthy rich and be humble. The question is whether you think of yourself more highly or lowly than you ought. Both extremes are pride because they fail to acknowledge reality. A person who pretends to be poor and humble for religion’s sake really is placing his confidence in the flesh, and defeating the whole concept of humility.
I agree with this. I think that the there is a lot more pride in a poor person who holds his poverty as a banner of his humility than a wealthy person who “claims” to be humble. Humility and wealth seem to have no correlation in a very literal sense. Humility is transcendent while wealth is physical - obviously wealth can also be abstracted, but this requires a moral deficiency in the person, not in the wealth itself.
I’d use the word humble to describe the realm of how a person relates to another, whether they put themselves above the other person, whether they demand to have their own way, etc.
Humility is simply being in submission to Truth. … The question is whether you think of yourself more highly or lowly than you ought. Both extremes are pride because they fail to acknowledge reality.
Probably everyone was implying this, but humility also involves one’s relation to and submission to God.
Exactly, Sharon.
I think it is important to distinguish genuine humility from false humility. Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, mentions this. It basically has to do with self-imposed rules or practices that are intended to make one appear humble.
Perhaps the greatest temptation for Christians is to try to appear humble or to adopt a way of thinking that supposes humility, but is actually pride in disguise. Despite the flaws in cchrisr’s initial comment, there is a very real truth about the attempt of Christians to want to appear moral; a desire for such appearance nullifies the grace of God, and therefore humility.
Consider Romans 3:24-27:
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
If Christians are justified by God’s Grace, then to contrive an appearance of, or otherwise boast about humility is inherently pride - not humility. That’s why I have a problem with a lot of this “culture war” rhetoric. It presupposes a superior morality. Maybe it is not intended to sound self-righteous, but much of it does.
Darius, I would say, as the antimoral representative of Nietzsche, that if you are against “sin” because of some morality, because of some other-worldly life (or even life-after-death), then you’re doing for all the wrong reasons. For Nietzsche, “morality” isn’t something done out of duty or pity, it is done because it is good. Note that I did not say it is done because it feels good but that one’s valuation of it has deemed it good. In other words, Nietzsche is against a list of “don’ts” in favor of a list of “do’s.”
Western Christianity is still largely Socratic whereas Nietzsche (and the subsequent movements of postmodernism) is a rejection of such and an affirmation of art. Nietzsche strives for breaking down the barrier between theory and theatre (and, coincidentally, both come from the Greek word theo). Socrates is pinned as the wholly theoretical man because he never wrote anything, he tried to remain as an observer instead of a participant. “O Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? O enigmatic ironist, was that perhaps your–irony?” (BT, Preface, 1)
Chris Austere pointed at the context in which I was using humility: “You can be filthy rich and be humble. The question is whether you think of yourself more highly or lowly than you ought.” For one to go to a church group and talk about being humble, then bring people home in order to show off all the great toys one has received is not humility. One needn’t live simple in order to be humble, bit it seems to help a bit. Morality shouldn’t be about making oneself appear to one’s community as their ideal person (i.e. by trying to display morality rather than practice it). Morality shouldn’t even be about duty towards others (or even God). This is why at one point Nietzsche says to kick the crutch from under the poor man on the corner but at another point he says to give aide to others. Morality should be about doing something because it is good.
For Nietzsche, the theatre never stops. Once the curtains go down, there should be a procession into the street as people continue to participate. In the Greek theatre, the design of the theatre implied that everyone was a member of the satyr chorus, that everyone was a participant in the production, not just the actors on stage. Nietzsche goes as far to push this point as name the satyr as the archetype of man because the satyr chorus on stage was between “man” and “gods.” Nietzsche was against opera during his time because it had become an avenue of entertainment, not of thought.
Atanamis, if you need explicit definitions in order to understand, then you are well beyond what I can help. Semiotics is rarely ever so structured and logical as “Programming in C#.” But, perhaps I should be honored at your comment because in order for me to be understood, I need to be misunderstood.
“Some people throw a bit of their personality after their bad arguments, as if that might straighten their paths and turn them into right and good arguments–just as a man in a bowling alley, after he has let go of the ball, still tries to direct it with gestures” (The Wanderer and His Shadow, 302).
(Thainamu, the links in my first paragraph are for links to the archives for posts with that tag.)
“Darius, I would say, as the antimoral representative of Nietzsche, that if you are against “sin” because of some morality, because of some other-worldly life (or even life-after-death), then you’re doing for all the wrong reasons. For Nietzsche, “morality” isn’t something done out of duty or pity, it is done because it is good. Note that I did not say it is done because it feels good but that one’s valuation of it has deemed it good. In other words, Nietzsche is against a list of “don’ts” in favor of a list of “do’s.””
cchrisr, I understand that your argument addresses what you term “Western Christianity,” and I don’t disagree with all the assertions that you make against this religious persuasion. But allow me to address morality from what I believe to be a New Testament perspective.
Scripture (Old Testament and New) teaches that sin, which is essentially wrongdoing, came into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (blessing and calamity). Sin is inherently evil because Satan is the author of it. The first sin was Lucifer’s attempt to exalt himself beyond God’s throne.
As a Christian, I would argue that I do good because it is good. I believe that God put the punishment of sin upon Jesus, so that people would no longer be in bondage to it. I believe that by beholding the Christ, that I am being conformed to his image. Good works is simply bearing the fruit that accompanies this reality. However, although that is my primary motivation for doing good, I also realize that there are consequences to sin. When it is finished, it brings forth death.
Christianity is not about a list of dos and don’ts, as was the Mosaic law. Those who think that way have never understood Biblical Christianity. Consider this passage:
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
-Colossians 2:13,14 (New International Version)
This actually does match up quite closely with Christ’s portrayal of the “most important” commands. Namely, “love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. According to Christ, all the “do not’s” are encompassed more concisely by these two “do this” statements. A list of all the things one “shouldn’t” do would be unending, particularly if it sought to be specific. The list of what we MUST do implies all the “do not’s” without having to state them.
I would appreciate an expansion of what you mean here, as it sounds interesting. I would be particularly interested in why you view Western Christianity as “Socratic”, and how that would differ from it following the model of Nietzsche.
Again, without knowing your friend it is hard to tell whether he is prideful of his possessions, or whether you simply feel envious of what he has. From the way you describe the situation, I would suspect the latter. I’m not sure how showing other people your neat stuff is necessarily thinking of yourself as better than others, though I would definitely agree that if your friend looks down on those with less than himself he is in fact immodest. If that is your intended argument, you have made it quite unclear with the implied jealously in your descriptions to this point.
I have yet to encounter a body of believers who would disagree with this statement. Are you perhaps addressing a straw man, or are you instead indicating that while Christians claim to value substance over appearance they are often more interested in appearances than reality? Christ refers to the Pharisees as “whitewashed sepulchers” indicating that the public appearance of good works is meaningless if the heart is not loving God, and loving their fellow man. (Indeed, he who claims to love God but loves not his fellow man is declared a liar by Scripture.)
Your comment makes meaningful statements which can be thought abour and addressed rationally. Your original entry assumed that your audience knew what you were thinking about before you expressed it. If your intent was to make a meaningless statement to fill a publishing schedule, you succeeded beautifully. If your intent was to make a meaningful statement, you failed. I know that you are quite capable of rational thought, it would be nice to see more if it displayed in future blog entries.
Your comment makes meaningful statements which can be thought abour and addressed rationally. Your original entry assumed that your audience knew what you were thinking about before you expressed it.
Or look at it this way - the entry gives us the opportunity to study Nietzsche on our own, provokes discussion, and piques our interest for the next article!