AJ Heschl on Why Religion Declined

Here's a thought-provoking quote from Rabbi A. J. Heschel in "God in Search of Man."

“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.”

What is the Place of Belief?

T. M. Luhrmann's op-ed, Belief is the Least Part of Faith strikes me as an example of an outsider looking it. There may not be much illustration value in her short article, but it's worth the glimpse it gives of evangelical faith from a sociological worldview. I imagine her book gives an eye-opening account of church culture but I'll have to wait till it hits the public library shelf to find out.

The Life of Pi

Pi adopts a deeply syncretistic faith, merging parts of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, but he does make an interesting comment on agnosticism:

To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

The Life of Pi,  p. 28

What Blessings of Atheism?

On January 5, 2012 in the NY Times there was an opinion piece called "The Blessings of Atheism." In a nutshell, the writer explains the origin of his atheism and calls for atheists to be more active in representing themselves.

Among the problems I have with his position is the idea that, since we can't explain why God would "do that [bad thing]," there must not be a God. First, I'm not willing to blame God for polio, the Newtown shootings, or my bout with cancer. Biblical teaching gives alternate explanations that make sense to me. Second, even if I did lay the blame with God and His reasons, I don't understand why I should think that God should be fully understood and comprehended by me. God, even by the definition of most non-Christian religions, is infinite. His wisdom is as well. Why should I think that I, as a finite person, should be able to comprehend His reasons in every case?

I appreciate that the writer does not want "to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith" but wants his "fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth." But without the standard of an infinitely good/moral/holy God, what is there to base moral good on? It reminds me of the old C. S. Lewis quip from Mere Christianity about the woman who doesn't care if there's a shortage of bread because she only eats toast.

While the article may not be useful as an illustration, it does reflect where many people are in their thinking when it comes to tragedy. 

Prayer & the Will to Live

A friend's daughter has been blogging about her first year of service as a nurse at a mission hospital in Africa. Her November 1 post tells the story of a patient who wanted to die after being diagnosed with HIV. Read the story of how the African nursing students at the hospital prayed for her and what happened.

This is a Good Thing

There are so many places where we're told that even bad things are not all bad because God is in control. Genesis 50:20, Proverbs 16:4, Isaiah 57:1, Romans 8:28 are a few examples.

I heard this story in church this morning. It sounds like one that probably has been around for a while and is more than likely apocryphal, but it makes the point.

---------------------

Quite a long time ago, a prince grew up with a servant assigned to him and the two became close friends. The servant had the unusual habit of saying, "This is a good thing" about everything that happened. The prince got used to hearing the phrase and never really thought much about it.

Eventually the prince grew older and became king. He was an avid hunter and always took his servant with him on the hunting trips. The servant's job in the field was to load the king's rifle and take care of any game the king shot. On one trip, the servant loaded the gun incorrectly and when the king fired it, the breech exploded and the king lost his thumb. His servant said, "This is a good thing." The king, as you might imagine, did not share his feeling. Angry and upset, he blamed his childhood friend and threw the servant in prison.

About a year later, the king had learned to compensate somewhat for the missing thumb and was on another hunting trip. This trip was near an area inhabited by hostile cannibals. He was captured and taken to their village. They began to make preparations to kill him until one of them noticed the missing thumb. In that culture it was considered unlucky to eat anyone who was missing a body part. They released their captive unharmed.

The king had a lot to think about on the trip home. The first thing he did on his return was to release his servant and apologize to him. "If you hadn't misloaded the gun, I would not have lost my thumb and I would be dead. You were right. It was a good thing that happened. I'm sorry I put you in prison."

His servant answered, "No, that too was a good thing. If you hadn't put me in jail, I would have been with you."

Boldly Go Where... or maybe not

[published in Readers Digest (Asia version), January 2008]