The Rev. Dr. G. Mark Griffith started his adult life preparing to be a physicist and an engineer, then got his Masters of Divinity and his Doctorate of Ministry in semiotics and future studies. He has been an ordained Lutheran pastor for 15 years. His dissertation Our Flight From Death is Killing Us: Applying a Psychological Framework to a Christian Understanding of the Human Condition relied heavily on applying the work of Ernest Becker in a Christian context.

Some people think Becker was anti-religion. Do you find Becker’s ideas compatible with religion?

Becker references religious writers like Kierkegaard and Tillich, but he didn’t write anything explicitly theological himself. So, there’s not often an audience for him in those circles – it’s not that they’re offended by it, I just don’t think they hear it as explicitly theological, or something that they need to consider. I come along as a very generalist kind of thinker, so I bring in everything I can. So yes, I am blown away at the interfaces between a Beckerian lens and the scripture. Becker blends and helps me see scripture in a way that I think is much more relevant and relatable. It didn’t start out as an academic interest, but as an introspective deconstruction of my own motivations – what am I doing, and how do I want to live this life?

How do you think death anxiety plays out in the context of faith? Can religion be another form of death denial?

I am personally very critical of communities of faith that have become co-opted as idolatrous immortality projects. Faith can be very easily co-opted into an immortality project, as opposed to one that authentically opens us up to life and the reality of mortality. If it becomes a buffer against it, it cuts us off from authentic expressions of faith and community. My dissertation was an invitation to self-reflection: To ask oneself, why am I a follower of Jesus Christ? Is it because I’m afraid of death? Am I running from something and using that faith as a crutch for an idolatrous immortality project? Or is it honestly and authentically opening me to life with the reality of mortality? I think the scriptures have long been abused to promise this illusion that you’re not going to die, that your soul just goes off to this happy place. And that completely subverts the reality of mortality.

Part of what I tried to do in my dissertation was build a bridge translating Christian language into Beckerian language. When we talk about idolatry, in some ways that can be synonymous with an immortality project in Becker’s language. You can see religious impulse activated into an immortality project, rather than an authentic relationship with the religion. And we have to be on guard for that. It’s easy to see Jesus promising eternal life as Jesus promising immortality, but that’s very clearly not what happens. The crucifixion is the most dramatic example of the way that fiction of immortality is shattered, and the cross serves to remind us of that.

Becker blends and helps me see scripture in a way that I think is much more relevant and relatable.

Can you summarize the Beckerian interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve?

Yes, that gets me in big trouble because I’m daring to challenge the traditional interpretation of how we think about Adam and Eve. And that’s like, the thing, right? I’m messing with the articulation of the fall and the problem of humanity. But I’m not the first one – Kierkegaard also talked about this and he’s a supporter of this view, as well as Becker.

I don’t believe we were created immortal; I don’t think Adam and Eve were created as immortal entities. The Bible states they we’re created literally out of the dust of the earth. There is no more of an example of something organic and biological than dust. We were created as mud creatures, which is literally the Hebrew translation. (And genderless by the way, which is an interesting footnote for today’s conversation around gender identity.) It wasn’t until God breathed the breath of life into these mud creatures that they became animated. And then Adam and Eve are planted in the garden (again, very organic metaphors). Inserting the idea of immortality into the text here is problematic because it’s just not there. You have to do some bending to get immortality into that text. 

Then Adam and Eve are told don’t eat the fruit of this tree, and of course – spoiler alert – they do. And I think that is just a reflection of the human propensity for curiosity. Then you’ve got the snake, this other curious character that is often synonymous in Christian thinking as the devil. But the Bible doesn’t say that. It just says it’s a serpent. And so the conversation happens, God says, “Don’t eat from that tree because on that day, you shall surely die.” And the serpent comes and says, “No, if you eat the fruit of that tree, you’re not going to die. Your eyes will be opened, and you will become like Gods, knowing the difference between good and evil.” 

So, they eat the fruit but they don’t immediately die. I think this is because God couldn’t say what the punishment would be outright, because the punishment is the same as the knowledge of the punishment. And it’s not an apple by the way, they didn’t have apples at that time. So, they eat the fruit and their eyes are open. And what’s the first thing that they notice? That they’re naked. Becker talks about that body being the front line of our awareness of mortality, and the shame of our bodies and sexual potency. This is the analogy to the evolution of human consciousness, to the self-awareness, and this is also often referred to as “the fall.” It is a way of understanding how we’ve evolved or been created, whatever language you want to use. But the other funny part of the story is, if you don’t take it on my interpretation, you’ve made God a liar. Because if you take it at face value, then the serpent was the only honest one, since he said they wouldn’t die, and they didn’t die. So, unless you take a Beckerian approach, you’re making God a liar.

That self-awareness, that awareness of mortality, is what I think really entered the human condition in that moment. Not death, but the knowledge of death. And I think the awareness of our mortality then becomes that root of evil that’s planted in our hearts. I’m sure some disagree with me, but I think this is a much more authentic interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture. I learned to view scripture in a way that is open to questions and critical thinking and wondering, and not just to take everything literally or believe that they really lived in a garden and sinned and ate the apple or else you’re a bad Christian. So, the awareness of mortality becomes that root of evil. And that makes everything we do kind of suspect – is my impulse to purchase this house just a maladaptive immortality project? And self-questioning is a very Lutheran thing to do. Martin Luther had what we call a very low anthropology, so he was suspect of his own motivations, even to do good. And I think that’s a Beckerian approach as well.

I think the scriptures have long been abused to promise this illusion that you’re not going to die, that your soul just goes off to this happy place. And that completely subverts the reality of mortality.

In your view, how can we reduce our tendency for evil?

I think by having more empathy, even for people who do have very defensive reactions. Understanding that this person is captivated by fear, because of a failing cultural fiction, and that’s traumatic. Approach people with a curiosity and a lens of care, rather than “you’re wrong” or “you’re a horrible person.” And we see that reflected in Scripture, too. For example, homosexuality that has been a hot button issue in the church world even though that ship has sailed culturally. Then you have to ask what’s at stake, and approach it with the lens of curiosity. Ask people, what’s at stake for you in that conversation? What are these values that are really underpinning those expressions? Let’s get to those. Let’s talk about that. And what are you really afraid of? Maybe you’re not afraid of gay people, maybe you’re afraid of dying.

I’m also really interested in what’s going on right now in the TMT world about built versus natural environments and death anxiety responses. We have a narrative of creation, and it is largely rooted in the Christian tradition, that we were created to dominate. But that’s a distortion of Scripture. However, if we care about the environment, and we understand our connection to the environment, that automatically articulates our own mortality, which not everyone is ready for. I think those are really big barriers in the environmental movement as well.

If you had to pick three main things to take from Becker that align with the Lutheran approach, what would those be?

I think the synergy between Becker’s concept of an immortality project and our understanding of idolatry. That’s amazing to see and I think helps illuminate a biblical interpretation in a modern context. Secondly, understanding one’s motivations as a tool for self-examination and self-reflection. It’s easy to diagnose others’ motivations, the hard work is doing that work within. And there needs to be grace and patience there because it can be scary, challenging work. And finally, not interacting with poor or other marginalized communities as symbolic extensions of our immortality projects that we can manipulate to make ourselves feel better, but authentically caring about our neighbors who need a place to live, to eat. I think being aware of the tendency to create our own immortality projects can make us more faithful followers of Jesus Christ who interface and connect with people more authentically. We should be able to go out into the community and authentically be who we think we should be.