Buddhism<\/a> in the end is his conviction that the autonomous self which has rights is one of the key contributions of Western civilization, drawn from its Judeo-Christian heritage, and it is unclear that an illusory self can be argued to have \u201ccertain inalienable rights\u201d (pp.26-29). <\/p>\nA particularly thought-provoking statement is that Bultmann was clearly wrong<\/em> about what \u201cmodern man\u201d simply cannot accept. The mythological view of the world is alive and well (p.62). Yet Berger himself rejects superstition (pp.82, 84), and so the point I took away from this is that I am not merely an inhabitant of a worldview in which one cannot<\/em> be superstitious. I am an advocate not merely of the Christian faith but of rationality and critical thinking. Rationality is not a given, but something I cherish as a value and am committed to promoting. I am not sure whether Berger is even right that the supernatural has lost something of its taken-for-grantedness<\/em>, since it is woven into the presuppositional fabric of the worldview of many in North America (p.99). Perhaps it is different in Western Europe. Berger himself makes assertions about what it is \u201cimpossible\u201d to accept, apparently unaware that historical critical scholarship is no more widely taken for granted in our time than the post-scientific demythologized perspective of Bultmann (p.148). Critical scholarship too is not merely a given but something one must choose, be committed to, and advocate on the basis of its merits.<\/p>\nBerger\u2019s references to theologians and authors show that he is lagging seriously behind in keeping up with Biblical studies and theology. For instance, he shows no awareness even of Stendahl\u2019s famous piece on \u201cPaul and the Introspective Consciousness of the West\u201d, much less more recent work on the \u201cnew perspective on Paul\u201d (p.149).<\/p>\n
In the end, Berger\u2019s primary conviction whereby everything is evaluated is a refusal to accept death as natural (pp.40, 163). For him, this is the be all and end all of everything, his key unargued and indefensible bedrock presupposition that simply must be accepted. It is the fact that history is a nightmare and the conviction that it ought not to be that drives him (pp.113-114). Yet there is no rationale other than personal preference for what Berger accepts as authoritative (such as Jesus\u2019 attitude towards death) and what he rejects as non-essential (such as the Jewish anthropology on which Jesus\u2019 view was based; see pp.167-168). The book does not live up to its title. It is not a skeptical affirmation of Christianity, but an emotional appeal regarding how one should view the world in response to the death of one\u2019s neighbor\u2019s child (p.174). I certainly agree that a theology that does not take such real-life phenomena seriously is of little use, but I am not persuaded that such phenomena can provide an adequate unifying center and\/or foundation for the theological enterprise. Ultimately, Berger\u2019s attempt at a lay theology fails not because he gives the tragedies of life a key importance, but because he fails to provide a coherent vision and outlook on that basis, or on any other.<\/p>\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/blue.butler.edu\/~jfmcgrat\/blog\/21AJ3Y5828L._AA_SL160_.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1405108487\")
<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-8855632462246209215?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"