I must admit that many of my most recent blog posts have had a strong spiritual tone. This may have been a bit of a turn-off to those who are uncomfortable with the spiritual as I define it, or to those who want me to write essays that are focused solely on the observable, quantifiable physical and economic processes of the ongoing decline of the Global North. While I don't apologize at all for the spiritual element, I promise that today's post will not be just another sermon. I also promise that in addition to the spiritual, today's post will contain the empirical. But before you can have your dessert, you must first eat your dinner!
* * *
Let's begin by studying a word: nihilism. The first page of a Google search of this word reveals the following definition at the top of the page: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless." According to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, nihilism is "originally a philosophy of moral and epistemological skepticism that arose in 19th-century Russia during the early years of the reign of Tsar Alexander II," although the Encyclopedia acknowledges that the concept pre-dates 19th-century Russia. The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (woo-hoo!), a product of the University of Tennessee, Martin, states that nihilism is "...the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." The IEP also states correctly that nihilism as a cultural phenomenon was examined by Friedrich Nietzsche, who concluded correctly that nihilism is the inevitable product of the rejection of the belief in a personal God who gives meaning to the universe, as corroborated by another Internet powerhouse created by a high-powered university, namely
Stanford. Nietzsche foresaw the destructive effects which nihilism would have on European and Euro-centric societies which had hitherto relied on Christian ethics and morals as a guide to right action and a restraint against wrong action. His solution therefore was to propose the emergence of an
Übermensch (or perhaps a collection of them) who would form a new aristocracy imposing its will on the rest of humanity, thus becoming the creators of the system of values by which the rest of humanity would be obliged to live - often without realizing this obligation. In other words, in the place of God - the
Übermensch! These individuals would be able to thus reign over the rest of us by virtue of their more finely developed "
will to power", and by means of the power thus conferred by that more developed will.
Now, time for full disclosure: the above paragraph is the result on my part of a rather brief study of nihilism and Nietzsche. A full study would require weeks, months, or even years of time and the possession of a brain possessed with enough reserves of working memory to untangle really long and knotty philosophical arguments. I know I don't have the time (mowed the lawn yesterday, need to plant more soybeans in my backyard and finish cleaning the house), and I'm not sure I have even a tenth of the mental firepower needed for such an effort. But let me break down the above paragraph into a set of propositions. Nihilism (and Nietzsche) involves the following:
- The belief that there is no intrinsic master of the universe who imposes meaning and values on the universe;
- The need to save human society from the anomie that results from Statement 1 above by the emergence of an Übermensch or aristocracy of such individuals who by their own finely developed will to power gain the power to impose that will on the rest of us.
- The rejection of the notion of impartial treatment of all men (and hence of the equality of all men). Note that this equality is specifically taught by the New Testament - a source which is rejected by both nihilism and Nietzsche.
The implications of these three attitudes are that if you happen to be one of the fortunate few who can act as an Übermensch, you can set the rules of whatever part of human society you control according to your own tastes. And more than likely, the chief goal of your tastes will be to maximize your power as much as possible, even if it means a diminishing of the power of others. ("Let's divide up the world fairly between us. One for me, and one for me. Two for me, and two for me...Heads I win, tails I win...") You can get away with it, because there is no intrinsic master of the universe who can impose his standards on you - standards which may well contradict yours.
* * *
At first blush, the tradition of thinking embodied in traditional American religious fundamentalism and white American evangelicalism would seem to be the farthest thing from nihilism and from the concept of the
Übermensch posited by Nietzsche as the antidote to that nihilism. After all, the rallying cry of American Protestants has historically been
Sola Scriptura. And if you're going to cry, "
Sola Scriptura!" ("By Scripture alone!") you have to accept Bible passages such as the Book of Ezekiel, which I am currently reading. Ezekiel's prophecy is the polar opposite of nihilism, as seen in quotes like this:
Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is very, very great, and the land is filled with blood, and the city is full of perversion, for they say, 'the LORD has forsaken the land, and the LORD does not see!' But as for me, My eye will have no pity nor shall I spare, but I shall bring their conduct upon their heads." - Ezekiel 9:9-10
In other words, by crying "
Sola Scriptura!" white American evangelicals have stated their belief in a moral universe, a universe ruled by an impartial moral standard imposed externally on it by a Creator who Himself rules over the universe He has created, and who is angered by and ready to punish the violation of His moral standard. Therefore, this moral standard is not the creation of any mortal man, but rather of the God who created the universe. Indeed, according to C.S. Lewis, the mere fact that humans appeal to a moral standard at all - even when the standard to which they appeal is of their own making - shows that humans acknowledge the existence of independent moral standards. This argument is beautifully set forth in
Mere Christianity. (By the way, white American evangelicalism seems to
love C.S. Lewis - at least from what they say about him.)
Armed with this recognition of a moral standard that is independent of man and which originated outside of man, white American evangelicalism has branded itself a warrior in behalf of this moral standard to impose this standard on everyone, whether they want it or not. Thus from the late 1960's until 2016, prominent American evangelical voices such as Charles Colson, Franklin Graham, Francis Schaeffer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al, have spoken tirelessly against the disappearance of Christian ethics and culture from the broader American culture, as well as warning against the rise of popularity of other religions and the loosening of American sexual mores. I must say that I think they have been partly right to speak out against things which the Bible speaks against. But when it comes to the fulcrum - the center of gravity - of the New Testament, they have been unaccountably silent. For Christ Himself (whom they claim to believe and follow) said, "Therefore, however you want people to treat you, you too, do so for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." He also said that next to the greatest commandment, namely to love the Lord with all one's being, the second greatest commandment was to love one's neighbor as oneself.
Plenty of other people have explained quite well how it suited American Protestant and evangelical churches to ignore the Scriptural duty each human being has toward his or her fellow human beings, since after all, white America made itself great by trashing, robbing, enslaving and oppressing everyone else on earth. Under such an arrangement, it would have been highly politically inconvenient for the mass of evangelicals to condemn what Ezekiel would call the gaining of material wealth by violence. (See
Ezekiel 22.) Indeed, if I might editorialize for just a bit, the Scripture frequently uses sexual imagery to describe the relationship between the God of the Bible and those who call themselves His people. The true Church is therefore called the Bride of Christ, while those who call themselves God's people and yet are unfaithful to Him are frequently called harlots or unfaithful wives. In this context, the white American evangelical church has for a long time made itself the spread-legged harlot - the serving wench - of secular, earthly economic and political power, and not the Bride of Christ.
They did so first by teaching that a Christian man's duty to love his fellow man applied only when the two men who needed to love each other were white. Then they taught that since the rest of us were defective, they could exterminate or enslave us at will, as if to re-enact Israel's conquest of the land of Canaan. The only problem with this is that they posited that we their intended targets deserved our mistreatment because we were more wicked than they. (That accusation has since been abundantly proven false!) And lastly, they redefined evil as being confined simply to certain sexual sins and piety as being confined merely to private observance of religious devotion - thus giving them license to systematically break almost every commandment of God that addresses how people are supposed to treat
each other.
I know what effect such teaching (and the treatment I received from white churches who taught it) had on me at first - there was the self-doubt, the questioning, the wondering whether it was actually true that God had created me to be the trash can, the vomit bucket, the toilet bowl, the punching bag of a select subset of humanity, and whether there really was nothing I could (or should) do about it. One of the things that saved me from that self-doubt and questioning has been that over the years, I have watched the ways in which the leading voices of white American evangelicalism have failed to uphold their own standard. For they can't even keep their own rules; therefore, they have lost all rights to claim that they are better than me in any way. So they say that sexual morality is the only kind of morality that matters? Maybe - but what about the many flag-waving Republicans who voted for Bush, who lost all their retirement savings in the 2008 financial meltdown? What about the patriotic American soldiers who were killed in the 2003 Iraq invasion which the United States performed to remove weapons of mass destruction that never existed? These are by no means the only true believers who have suffered from the failure of man to do right by man. And regarding sexual morality - why is it that the Republicans and evangelicals who were so strident in impeaching Bill Clinton have rallied around Donald Trump? You who are ready to punish my imperfection, you who accuse me of being a violent thug ready to rape women because I am an African-American male, why have you not stoned
Dennis Hastert to death for his sin? Or
Mark Sanford? Or
Josh Duggar?
But I am not here today to editorialize. I have a larger point to make - first, that the white American evangelical church (and by extension, the entire Republican party) have come to me to be the perfect embodiment of nihilism. Nihilism in the sense that while they say they believe in an impartial moral standard that originated outside of themselves, they act as if there is no such standard and that the only standard to which they need to submit is the standard which they themselves create and have the power to enforce. They are the
Übermensch aristocracy, whose philosophy is captured in this
quote attributed to an aide of former President George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
So,... what's the point of all that I have written so far? As I said a few sentences ago, I am not here to editorialize. Nor am I here to try to appeal to the better angels of the people now in power in this country. Frankly, I am tired of that kind of editorializing (although today I found a particularly fine example of it
here). To me it's a waste of time to tell people who do very bad things that they are in danger of thus making themselves very bad people once you see that they
want to be bad because they find badness to be
ego-syntonic. My question is much cruder. Namely, it is this: how long can a society get away with murder before there are consequences? For the universe is
not nihilist! After all, the Bible does not just appeal to our better angels; it also promises consequences to those people who do not have better angels. And the consequences are not just that such people will become icky. The Bible promises that God will break things in the lives of those who continue in evil. "The soul that sins shall die." - Ezekiel 18:4. "The wages of sin is death..." - Romans 6: 23. "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." - Galatians 6:7. In other words, I am looking for the propagation of the
outworkings of damnation in a society that ought to be damned. Moreover, I am looking not only as a Christian, but as an empiricist, a person who has received a technical professional education and earned a technical professional degree and who is familiar with the scientific method. And this weekend, I think I've found some evidences for the propagation I've been looking for.
* * *
Consider again the white American evangelical and Protestant establishment as the spread-legged harlot - the serving wench - of secular, earthly economic and political power, and not the Bride of Christ. Consider that church as a key pillar of the power base of Donald J. Trump, and consider that this is so because of the leaders who have risen to prominence in the evangelical ecosphere. Now consider what is happening to that church in the age of COVID-19. I leave you with the following citations:
I therefore hypothesize the emergence of a much smaller evangelical presence in America over the next several months, and the diminishment of American evangelicalism as a potent and controllable force in American politics. (Disclaimer: I am not a prophet, and have not been officially certified by any state or government board as having any sort of gift of prophecy. Take what I say with a grain of empiricism - YMMV.) I also hypothesize the emergence of a cohort of jobless pastors! This decline of evangelical power is, I think, one of the biggest reasons why Trump is so hot to remove social distancing restrictions on large indoor gatherings. It is also why the Trump administration has
extended COVID-19 financial aid to evangelical churches (in violation, some would say, of the Constitutional separation of church and state).
Trump's use of government resources to prop up cronies leads me to the consideration of other propagations of the outworkings of damnation. These considerations overwhelmingly involve the effect on American secular power. But you'll have to wait until my next post to read them. It's way past time for me to do other stuff...
