THANK GOD GOD IS DEAD

I’ve recently started reading Genealogy of Morals by Frederick Nietzsche and I have to admit that I really like it. I am not crazy about the writing style of Nietzsche and I obviously disagree with quite a bit of what he concludes, but as one of the early existentialist and a deconstructionist before there was such a thing, I can’t deny that I connect with him quite a bit as well. Nietzsche famously stated that God was dead. But it is important to contextualize his perspective. He did, in fact, not believe in God, but his choice of words reflects that his beliefs were more about the belief in God, not God himself. Nietzsche had his own experiences with the church and faith that helped shaped his beliefs. But it was the church more than anything else that he found so offensive. In Genealogy of Morals he states, “Certainly it has, over the years, become crude and boorish, something repellent to a more delicate intellect, to a truly modern taste. Ought it not to become at least a little more refined?- Today it alienates rather than seduces.- Which of us would be a free spirit if the church did not exist? It is the church, not its poison, that repels us.- Apart from the church, we, too, love the poison.”

Nietzsche was identifying something that was about to radically shape Christianity. For centuries there were people who disagreed with the church for one reason or another, but Nietzsche was attacking it at a much more global and fundamental level. He was arguing that in an age of rationalism (an age that he didn’t necessarily fit in anyway) there was no reason for the church and its understanding of God. Even though he didn’t believe in God, he felt that without the church people would still find God because people like the idea of it. However, the church continued doing everything it could to ensure it remained the keeper of the truth. The rationalism should have destroyed the church, but because it was not going to lose control of the people, the church developed a rationalistic dogma concerning God. So whereas Nietzsche was seeing the death of God from such an absolutist perspective, the results were a belief system that was changing in such a way that the church would still be the authors of theology. But since Nietzsche wrote those words, there has been a growing paradigm about the nature of truth and his ideas have footing once again. Only in the more ecclesiastical movement we are seeing that the goal is not to see the church disappear (necessarily) or to completely deny the existence of God, but rather to be free from the absolutism of the church in order to experience God in new ways. The fear from the church is that without the church, theology would run rogue. And perhaps there is reason for concern, but as Nietzsche predicted, if we hold to seeking out truth, the truth will present itself.

Those who hold to the idea that the institution is the only avenue for finding God and that God must continued to be named as such have a valid concern that Christianity without accountability by the institution is subject to being directed by culture rather than directing culture. I agree that there is a valid concern that Christianity can become too relevant without accountability, but I believe that the institution is the organism promoting that sense of being relevant. The church often argues that it is opposed to culture, but only when it conflicts with established absolutes. This becomes problematic when an organization seeks being a part of culture when it is convenient and puts its flag in ground for opposing culture when it disagrees. What occurs is a fixation on the church’s role in culture, rather than the ministry of Christ. Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church is an excellent example of this. Not too long ago he posted some comments about syncretists (those who go too far into culture) and sectarians (those would avoid culture). In the posting he argued for balance. Despite his misunderstanding about these terms, he also demonstrates what the emergent church is trying to reconcile- how relevant is it suppose to be. Driscoll’s thoughts can be found in almost every church that has put growth as a one of its major goals. The emergent church and other institutions are trying to find a place where grace and law find a happy balance as a part of justifying many of its approaches to accomplishing this goal. This is not good theology. It is the tension itself between the two that are where good theology is found. In the same way, it is not any absolutistic idea about who God is that creates intimacy. That only creates perspective. Perspective is good and God will give it to you when it is needed, but for the most part, God is much more effective in our lives when we lack perspective. Put simply, these things create God and who he is in our lives rather than allowing God to create himself in us.

So for that I say, Thank God God is Dead. The freedom that can come from striping ourselves of those things which we use to understand God allow us to see him in new ways, but more importantly for him to create in us who he wants us to become. There is the issue of accountability and while the church is still a valid voice in that discussion, it might be valuable to open the lines of communication with that one too.