March 9, 2004
THE ATHEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE:
Hooked on Heaven Lite (DAVID BROOKS, 3/09/04, NY Times)
Who worries you most, Mel Gibson or Mitch Albom? Do you fear Gibson, the religious zealot, the man accused of narrow sectarianism and anti-Semitism, or Albom, the guy who writes sweet best sellers like "Tuesdays With Morrie" and "The Five People You Meet in Heaven?"I worry about Albom more, because while religious dogmatism is always a danger, it is less of a problem for us today than the soft-core spirituality that is its opposite. As any tour around the TV dial will make abundantly clear, we do not live in Mel Gibson's fire-and-brimstone universe. Instead, we live in a psychobabble nation. We've got more to fear from the easygoing narcissism that is so much part of the atmosphere nobody even thinks to protest or get angry about it.
Albom is far from the worst of the schmaltzy shamans, but his fable "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" happens to sit at No. 3 on the Times best-seller list and pretty much exemplifies the zeitgeist. It's about an 83-year-old man who feels lonely, adrift and unimportant, and who dies while trying to save a little girl from a broken carnival ride.
He goes to heaven and meets five people who tell him that he is not alone and that his life was not unimportant. They reconcile him with his father, who had been cruel to him. They remind him of what a good person he was. He gets to spend time with his wife, whom he'd neglected and who died young. He is forgiven for the hurts he accidentally committed while alive.
All societies construct their own images of heaven. Most imagine a wondrous city or a verdant garden where human beings come face to face with God. But the heaven that is apparently popular with readers these days is nothing more than an excellent therapy session. In Albom's book, God, to the extent that he exists there, is sort of a genial Dr. Phil. When you go to his heaven, friends and helpers come and tell you how innately wonderful you are. They help you reach closure.
In this heaven, God and his glory are not the center of attention. It's all about you.
Bet in Mitch Albom's heaven, Chick-Fil-A is open whenever you're hungry. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 9:08 AM
Albom's congregation in the here and now may not be doing all that well either -- ABC Radio's satellite channel bumped his show from 3-6 p.m. (live) to 6-9 p.m. to 1-4 a.m. and now off its system completely, replaced by reruns of Sam Donaldson's show.
Getting aced out of the overnight slot by the Rev. Donaldson isn't something to be proud of if you're preaching to the pop culture chior, though Albom is still better to listen to than the New York Times' William C. Rhoden on ESPN's "The Sports Reporters."
Posted by: John at March 9, 2004 9:19 AMWhile God will wipe every tear from our eyes, with no more mourning or crying or pain (Rev 21:4), our principal job in heaven will be to worship Him.
9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:
"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb." 11 All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God. Rev 7:9-11 (NIV)
Meeting lost loved ones and reconcilation is just a nice side benefit.
Posted by: Gideon at March 9, 2004 10:03 AMThe description of this in the original "Bedazzled" with Cook and Moore always rang true to me.
(After praising Cook (playing Satan but standing in for G-d) for about 30 seconds, Moore asks to trade places with Cook. Satan replies, (in effect) "That's what I said.")
Posted by: David Cohen at March 9, 2004 10:15 AMGideon:
Sure, it's a nice side benefit. But how does one go about avoiding the ex-wife and in-laws?
Posted by: Rick T. at March 9, 2004 10:48 AMI haven't read his books, but I've been listening to his radio program some. If you heard what he said about Davis Love III, you wouldn't think he was such a softie.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 9, 2004 12:58 PMOrrin:
"Bet in Mitch Albom's heaven, Chick-Fil-A is open whenever you're hungry."
Yes, and all wives forgive their husbands' adulteries, because they finally see they were sincere.
Posted by: Peter B at March 9, 2004 7:32 PMIt's really sad seeing how Mitch Albom has devolved from the most talented sports columnist in America into a sawed-off, lightweight, pale male version of Oprah.
Posted by: MarkD at March 9, 2004 9:07 PMIt cracks me up to see believers castigate each other for the insincerity of the other's faith. It brings to mind a phrase I once heard in church: "remove the beam from your own eye before you cast out the speck in your neighbors eye" or something to that effect. For anyone who expects to be prancing about in Heaven someday, this also applies: It's all about you.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 9, 2004 10:07 PMPrancing? Not in Heaven.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 11:11 PMRobert,
Most ideologies (and that's all religions really are) splinter this way; over issues of "purity" and the like. Its always especially funny when they stomp around and get pissed off about people "stealing their message." As if they have some monopoly that no one should be able to interfere with.
Posted by: Gary Gunnels at March 10, 2004 1:44 AMLike Dawkins vs. Gould...
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 8:09 AMOr not. I'm still waiting to hear of the first fatality resulting from insufficient Dawkins v. Gould ideological purity.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 10, 2004 3:23 PMJeff:
Dawkins is just warming up, but talk to anyone who knows the histories of hundreds of Soviet scientific institutes about death resulting from scientific disputes. But you're right in one sense, science is remarkably good at killing by consensus.
Posted by: Peter B at March 10, 2004 4:51 PMScientific dispute? Lysenko? Next I suppose you'll be treating the 1937 trials as a legal debate.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 11, 2004 6:50 PM