I do have a hard time understanding why some "Christians" apologize for Nietzsche, and say things like "well he was just reacting to a distorted version of Christianity which he saw".
What I find even more entertaining is the way some of his secular admirers try to excuse him from any responsibility for the formation of Nazi ideology. Nietzche's views were anything but egalitarian (as, oddly enough, many of his contemporary admirers are), and it's hard to not see him as part of the same germanic cesspool which birthed "National Socialism". I remember back in the day reading lots of occult material, including literature put out by various "left hand" groups like the "Church of satan" and the "Temple of set", and the ideology underlying these groups is essentially Nietzchian, without any stops. In fact I had not familiarized myself with Nietzche's writings or thought at all prior to reading these satanic manifestos, and was surprised to find out later on that their entire world view was basically pages torn out of his writings.
Nietzche, for all of his "idol smashing", actually had something of a romantic affinity for the "classical" (greco-roman) world, or at least it's mythos. Understanding this, I think it's easy to see how his views clash, on a very fundamental level, with the "philosophy" the Holy Gospel offers us. The Cross, and all talk of meekness and long suffering (with the understanding that this current age is passing) were just as much a scandal to Nietzche as they were to the Areopagites (save St.Dionysius, obviously.)
Seraphim
He is thorough in his scholarship as always, and even-handed, if not particularly exciting; that's what I meant by typical Pelikan. He seems to digress more than necessary though, if indeed it is a digression at all; it's possible that some of the parts are merely getting to the point the "long way" around. In other words, it's sometimes hard to tell whether a particular passage is suppose to be related to the subject being discussed or not.
