Friday, March 2, 2012

9-11 Revisited


                              A Still Small Voice: General Revelation in the Tragedy of 9-11




            Ashes. Thick, colorless, black and grey ashes methodically descended from the skyline covering the city in a blanket of confusion, fear and doubt. I remember the clouds of smoke billowing from the sides of this post-modern tower of Babel. Smoke so thick and dense it seemed to suck the very light and color out of the morning sun and send this Unreal City into the premature darkness of night.

            Driving over the Mid-Hudson Bridge exactly 10 years latter, September 11, 2011, I find a small, yet somewhat morbid sense of poetic justice in the dark and dreary weather. It seems only fitting that the earth too would snap out of its melodic melees of summer glory and if only for a brief moment, mourn with the rest of us, shedding tears that slowly fell into the Hudson River. It was as if the almost silent reverberations of water on water were a cosmic dirge from whence the rain proceeded like a funeral procession slowly and surely to the ocean.

            It is in moments and hours such as that fateful September day 8 years ago that the world stands up and joins the philosopher in his tirelessly, unceasing chorus of “WHY?” To steal from T.S. Elliot, events such as these “force the moment to its crisis” (Prufrock). On a day when mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, were so unexpectedly and publicly executed, even the most jaded, mediated, agnostic soul faces an existential crisis. The universal “why?” was spoke forth only to get sucked into those cursed black clouds of smoke, before it could even reach the ears of God.

            In Elliot’s “Ash Wednesday” he writes, “Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.” On September 11, 2001 there was a nation-wide silence, and the word that resounded, piercingly loud and clear was DISORDER. Surely the poet had been mistaken, September, not April, was the “cruelest month.”

            On that early September day there was no struggle to find disorder. This is a world of disease, famine, plague, terrorism and death. As Bob Dylan sings, “He not busy being born is busy dying.” In a world of disorder we are posed with the same question that Elie Wiesel faced in one of Hitler’s death camps. Wiesel, in Night, recounts the story of walking past Jewish prisoners hanging:

                            But the third rope was still moving: the child, too light, was still breathing…

                                And so he remained for more than half an hour, lingering between life and

                                death, writhing before our eyes. And we were forced to look at him at close

                                range. He was still alive when I passed him. His tongue was still red, his eyes

                                not yet extinguished. Behind me, I heard the same man asking: “For God’s

                                sake, where is God?” And from within me, I heard a voice answer: “Where

                                he is? This is where—hanging here from this gallows.”

                On days like 9-11, and in a post-modern world where more than ever this disorder seems to assert Nietzsche’s claim that “God is dead”, we all are faced with what Heidegger called Geworfenheit. Geworfenheit is a German word that essentially means “throwness” or a having been thrown. In an age post mortem dei (after the death of God), the whole of humanity is stricken with a sense of Geworfenheit. Man is not at home in a world without God. At the very core all of mankind is confused, alone and disordered. The human experience, which Heidegger describes as one of “dasien” (being there) is a constant and perpetual state of disorientation. With out the existence of an eternal deity, man does not know where he came from or where he is going. We have been thrown into this universe where we find ourselves existing before we know what it means to exist, and the heavens and the earth continue to proclaim “disorder.”

            This disordered state of affairs, brought to the forefront by events such as 9-11, calls for a Cartesian-like crisis; a reexamination and questioning of our fundamental beliefs. In an age of reason Descartes sought after scientific and mathematical-like certainty in all fields of study. He wanted an indubitable starting point upon which he could build a new house of knowledge. However, in order to build a new house we must first tear down the old one. Let us then take up the Cartesian torch and try and search for a semblance of certainty by reexamining the way we look at our world.

            In the Platonic dialogues Socrates constantly preached the importance of examining the things that we learned at our mother’s knees. In today’s day and age the mother referred to throughout the Platonic corpus is completely analogous to the public school systems.

            In Chemistry we were all taught, and believed with 100% mathematical certainty, that atoms were the smallest unit of matter. That is however until scientists cracked the atoms and found a world of electrons and protons. Then, years latter, scientists discovered the quark, and quickly it replaced the atom as the smallest unit of matter. Finally, certainty! That is however until scientists cracked the quark and discovered that at the root, the core of all substance is energy. Energy, you say, scratching your head. Energy is not tangible enough. It is not corporeal. It has no extension.

            So what is it then that give form to all substances. What is it that makes something water rather than gold, or dirt or a chair? We have now found that the essence of all corporal, physical things, the thing that makes a thing a thing is relationships. Substance and form is intrinsically and explicitly relational. It is the arrangement and the relation of the electrons to one another that gives form.

            To take this one step further, I would assert, however political incorrect it may be, that the pinnacle, the crowning jewel of physical substance is the human being. Just as we questioned what makes a physical thing the thing that it is, what gives it its form, let us turn the question inward and ask what makes a man the particular man that he is.

            We must first look at the human condition and realize that even as individualistic as this technologically driven age may be, we do not exist as individuals in a vacuum. Our existence is a “field of being” (Heidegger). What makes a person who they are is one hundred percent relation based. I am only a teacher because I have a class. My father would not exist as a father without his children, nor I as a son without my father and mother. The human condition, at its core is relation based. Just as inanimate corporeal things gain there substance from their relations, we too find our essence, our meaning in relationships.

            To dig one last step further into the murky waters of the metaphysical, let us examine the essence of God. St. Augustine was once posed with the question of “what was God doing before he made the universe?” He snidely replied, “He is making hell for people who ask stupid questions.” In his work on the trinity however, Augustine answers the question in a much less sarcastic tone. Before God created the universe, he was in communion, in relationship with himself. The triune God of Christianity exists as three persons in one. The Father is only the Father in relation to the Son and the Son the Son only in relation to the Father. The essence of the three person God-head is relational.

            What great symmetry! What great order! After the clouds of billowing smoke have dissipated and dispersed, after our ideas have been reexamined we find the universe cries out order! Design! Peace! From the atoms, to the person, to God himself there is a divine order of relationships. This is an order and symmetry so divinely orchestrated that even in the midst of the most horrific of days, after the ashes settle, in that brief moment of silence the word resounds, and like music to the ears it pronounces “Peace”, “Order.”

                               

Liberty on the 4th of July


On a day when illuminating the sky with fireworks and intoxicating ourselves with cheap beer is passed off as patriotism, it may seem off color to question our conception of liberty, but it is most certainly not off topic. Today we celebrate the birth of a country, and we celebrate primarily because that country is a place where freedom and liberty reign. But what are freedom and liberty? These words are tossed around mindlessly as the masses “ohh!” and “ahh!” at flashing colors in the sky that even the 9th century Chinese would fail to find impressive.
Is liberty nothing more than a hollow concept that has the ability to galvanize a nation for the day?
 Liberty is a double edged sword. If by liberty we mean the ability to do whatever we want, it can be one of the most destructive forces in the world. Liberty is not a license for licentiousness, at least that is not the conception of liberty that this country was built on. Liberty loses it’s ability to liberate if it is left unchecked. In a society that hopes to survive, liberty must be guarded and ordered by something larger and greater than itself. (How is that for patriotism on the 4th of July?)
True liberty is fundamentally tied to a moral foundation. Tocqueville expressed this sentiment in his Democracy in America, when he approvingly quoted an excerpt from a speech by John Winthrop:

“There is a liberty of corrupt nature, which is affected both by men and beasts, to do what they list; and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty, Sumus Omnes Deteriores (we are all inferior); ‘tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty, which is the proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good; for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives.”

Religion being set as the foundation of moral and social order is not an arbitrary, outdated, imposition. Rather, the decrees of God control licentious, liberal, liberty, which in the end enslave mankind in a prison of their own devices and desires. Liberty detached from Religion ends in blood. Tocqueville knew this all to well, as many of his family members were slaughtered in the names of “liberte, egalite, fraternite.” Tocqueville quickly realized that “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom go hand in hand. Freedom sees in religion the companion of its struggles and its triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, the divine source of its rights. It considers religion as the safeguard of mores.”

On a day we celebrate liberty, let us pray that we are never given complete liberty. Let us hope that liberty is always kept safe and warm, just barely out of our grasps, wrapped in the divine decrees and laws of the Great Lawmaker. Thank God for a lack of liberty, which is the runway to freedom.

Nietzsche and the Church


    The Antichrist: Why Nietzsche May Have Understood Christianity Better Than the Modern Church.



            “With this I will now conclude and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity and confront it with the most terrible accusation that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. To my mind it is the greatest of all conceivable corruptions, it has had the will to the last imaginable corruption. The Christian  church let nothing escape form its corruption; it converted every value into its opposite, every truth into a lie, and ever honest impulse into an ignominy of the soul…This eternal accusation against Christianity I would fain write on all walls, wherever there are walls…I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty, I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.”[1]

            Those words mark the conclusion of Friedrich Nietzsche’s scathing, visceral, venomous, anti-Christian treatise The Antichrist. In this work, originally published in 1895, Nietzsche spews aphorismic fire and brimstone against this greatest of all evils: Christianity. The 19th century German philosopher, most noted for his eloquently terse obituary- “God is Dead”- may seem like the last person on earth that a Christian would turn to to base their Christology and Ecclesiology off of. Yet this mad-genius, this atheistic poet, this nihilistic philosopher seems to understand Christianity- true Christianity- in a much truer sense than the modern Christian and church as a whole.

            The Metaphysical void of post-modernity has given birth to a bastardization of  “true” Christianity. The Christian community has been replaced by “personal relationships” with Jesus. What we call Christianity shares little resemblance to what is found in the bible. “The Bible never mentions Christianity. It does not preach Christianity. Nor does it encourage us to preach Christianity. Paul did not preach Christianity. Nor did any of the other apostles…Christianity, like Judaism, and Yahwish, is an invention of Biblical scholars, theologians and politicians…”[2]

            The modern Christian is all too guilty of completely personalizing salvation, the atonement and Christianity as a whole. This is a post-modern reaction that is “human, all too human.” In short, the modern Christian, with utmost hubris, has replaced the church with the self. This obviously begs the question: What place does the Bible give the church?

            “The Bible gives no hint that a Christian belief system might be isolated from the life of the church.”[3] Paul specifically notes in Ephesians 4 that we are not only united by one hope and faith but ONE baptism. Somehow the post-modern church has rewritten Ephesians 4 as follows: “We all are the same if we have a personal relationship with Jesus. O yeah, by the way, if you want to, baptism is a nice unifying extra.”

            The personal, democratization of salvation has left the Church in an undeservedly marginalized place. “The Church is not a club for religious people. The Church is a way of living together before God, a new way of being human together.”[4] When we are called by Christ to deny the world we are not left on an island to flail helplessly against those who have rejected the truth, we are given a community to join. We are given a new humanity. We are given the new Jerusalem. We are given the Church- the already of the already- not yet dichotomy. “The Church anticipates the form of the human race as it will be when it comes to maturity; she is the “already” of the new humanity that will be perfected in the “not yet” of the last day.”[5]

            The Church is God’s heavenly city invading all other earthly cities. This invasion inevitably will lead to conflict. The church truly is a political body. It is a political movement. Paul uses two Greek words for the church which are both charged with political overtones and undertones. He constantly uses the word “ekklesia” which is a political term that translates- the called together ones. The word-choice leaves little room for individual “Christianity.” The second word Paul uses is “Koinonia” which is Greek for community. This is a word that is constantly uses by Aristotle in his Politics.[6] “In short: Paul did not attempt to find a place for the Church in the nooks and crannies of the Greco-Roman polis. The Church was not an addition, but an alternative to, the “koinonia” of the polis.”

            It might serve as a useful project for the modern Christian to go back and re-read Paul with new eyes. Pick any chapter of any book written by Paul and see if he sees the Church/ Christianity in political terms. I have done so, randomly choosing Romans 1.

            In the very first verse, Romans 1:1, Paul introduces himself as a man who is “separated” to the gospel of God. He understood that Christianity is something that in a real sense divides him from the rest of humanity.  In Romans 1:11 Paul states that he longs to see those in Rome so that they may be “established” and that they may be “encouraged together.” We see here Paul’s understanding, that the Church is something that is built against the rest of the world and encouragement is something received from an ekklesia or a gathering together- not from privatized belief. In Romans 1:16 Paul states that salvation is for the “Jew first and also for the Greek.” The Church has completely forgotten what Paul understood- Christians are the branches that are graphed into the tree that is the Jews. The modern Christian views the Old Testament as some cumbersome appendage to the New Testament. They fail to realize that the Old Testament, the Jews, are a picture of the Church and of Christ. They were the already of the already- not yet – dynamic that sees its fulfillment in the Church- which will see [7]its fulfillment, in the perfection on the last day. If the Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish movement than it too is a political body! It is a people, a tribe, a unity. One would be hard pressed to find a more politically charged statement about Christianity than Romans 1:16.

            Now that we have a snapshot of how Paul viewed the Church, let us make the “natural transition” into how Nietzsche viewed the Church. The first words penned by Nietzsche in The Antichrist read: “This book belongs to the very few.” What a perfectly anti-Christian way to start a treatise that attacks Christianity. Nietzsche writes for the elite, the ubermench, the god-like. Christianity is for the Jews and the Gentiles. It is for all mankind. Not only is it a religion that seeks to unify, it specifically targets the polar opposite of Nietzsche’s target audience. Christianity embraces the poor, the widows, the sick, the destitute, the lepers, the lame, the dumb and the children. Not only does Christianity accept these people, it calls for them to sit at the table. It calls for them to eat and drink with their savior.

            Nietzsche claimed that “The weak and the botched shall perish…And they ought even to be helped to perish.”[8] Jesus entered our humanity and washed our feet. Nietzsche calls Christians “domesticated animals.”[9] Christ calls us brothers and sisters, even princes. It is clear that Nietzsche’s point of view could not be any further from that of a Christian. This however is not to say that he did not understand Christianity- in many aspects, better than we do.

            Nietzsche writes, “We should not deck out and adorn Christianity; it has waged a deadly war upon this higher type of man…it has set the strong man as the typical pariah, the villain. Christianity has sided with everything weak low and botched.”[10] Nietzsche understood that this new city, this new humanity called for a complete transvaluation of the normal order.

            Even further, Nietzsche understood that the Church was a transvalued version of Israel. “How is it possible that we are still so indulgent towards the simplicity of Christian theologians today, as to declare with them that the evolution of the concept of God, from the ‘God of Israel,’ the God of a people, to the Christian God, the quintessence of all goodness, makes a step forward?”[11] Nietzsche did not see the OT as and appendage to the new. He understood that one people group was exchanged (or added to) for another- a new political body.

                        “Undoubtedly, the Kingdom of God has thus become larger. Formerly all he

                                   had was his people, his chosen people. Since then he has gone traveling

                                   over foreign lands, just as his people have done; since then he has never

                                   rested anywhere: until one day he felt at home everywhere, the great

                                   Cosmopolitan, until he got the greatest number, and half the world on

                                    his side. But the God of the greatest number, the democrat among gods,

                                    did not become a proud heathen god notwithstanding: he remained a Jew,

                                    he remained the God of the back streets, the God of all dark corners and

                                    hovels, of all the unwholesome quarters of the world! His universal empire

                                 is now as ever a netherworld empire, an infirmary, a subterranean empire,

                                 a ghetto empire. And he himself is so pale, so weak, so decadent. Even

                                    the palest of the pale were able to master him—our friends the metaphysicians,

                                  those albinos of thought.”[12]

            Although he hated the idea of it, Nietzsche understood that the Bible taught that God remained a Jew. He remained connected to a political body. That body now was the Church. The head of this political body has “declared war on life.”[13] God established a new humanity a new kingdom that is fundamentally at odds with what Nietzsche calls “the natural order.”

            This God of the back streets is, according to Nietzsche, a God of “contradictions.” And he could not be more right. Christ has transvalued all normalcies. The meek will inherit the earth! The Christian life is not one that should easily assimilate into the society at large. The pieces do not fit.

            In the midst of a backhanded critique of Christianity, Nietzsche unveils the core of the faith. “Christianity aims…to make them ill, to render feeble is the Christian recipe for taming, for civilization.”[14] Christianity is not a religion that aims to establish men in positions of power in this world. We are called to deny ourselves and follow Christ. We are called to, as Nietzsche notes “a different mode of action.”[15] It is this mode of action and not “a faith with distinguishes Christians.”[16] But what mode of action should distinguish the Christian?

            Nietzsche writes,  “The Very word Christianity is a misunderstanding, truth to tell, there never was more than one Christian, and he died on the cross…It is false to the point of nonsense to see in faith, in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing trait of the Christian: the only thing that is Christian is the Christian mode of existence, a life such as he led who died on the cross.”[17] Nietzsche understood that the Church, in essence, has exchanged sanctification for an all encompassing justification.  But Christianity must be tied to Christ-likeness. It must be a movement, a body. “To reduce the fact of being a Christian, or of Christianity to holding of something for true, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is tantamount to denying Christianity.”[18]

            Christians may be too focused on some other-worldly kingdom that they fail to see the kingdom that is already here. Nietzsche did not make this mistake. “But the Gospel has clearly been the living, the fulfillment, the reality of the Kingdom of God. It was precisely a death such as Christ’s that was this Kingdom of God.”[19] We have denied the “already” in order to fully focus on the “not yet.” The kingdom is here. It is real. It is tangible and corporeal. It is physical. It is something we can see and taste. We can drink it and eat. The Church is the bridegroom and Christ is the bride. We are not anticipating the wedding. We should be rejoicing in the wedding that already happened.

            It may be safe to say, that in many respects, Nietzsche understood Christianity better than we do.



[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 74-75.
[2] Leithart, Peter: Against Christianity. Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho. 2003. pp 13.
[3] Leithart, Peter: Against Christianity. Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho. 2003. pp 14.
[4] Leithart, Peter: Against Christianity. Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho. 2003. pp 16.
[5] Leithart, Peter: Against Christianity. Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho. 2003. pp 16.
6 Leithart, Peter: Against Christianity. Canon Press Moscow. Idaho. 2003. pp 27.
[7] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. xxiii.

[8] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 4.
[9] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 5.
[10] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp.5.
[11] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 15.
[12] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 15.

[13] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 15.

[14] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 20.

[15] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 34.
[16] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 20
[17] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 39.
[18] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 39.
[19] Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Antichrist. Barnes and Noble, New York. 2006. pp. 41.