Fragment -- #81

[November 1998 journal entry]
The ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am taking is a departure from Kierkegaard’s ‘religious’ sphere (as presented in Fear and Trembling, for instance) in that I contend Abraham should either protest or refuse the conclusion he adopts in the Genesis story. The approach I am taking would not view Abraham’s sacrificing his son as ‘faith’ or as ‘ethical’ or as theologically acceptable. Yes, this position extends to whether I can view the death of ‘Jesus’ as an intended/planned sacrifice. Where the Abraham story includes no protest, the Job story/play builds around protest and the implicit expectation that ‘God’ is accountable.

Fragment -- #80

[November 1998 journal entry]
In a professional formation session with a young physician, he asked how at this point in his life – given the limitations and narrowness of the education he received in his religiously conservative upbringing, at a religiously conservative college, and at medical school – he should seek to educate himself. I offered the following markers from my life/experience. (1) Seek/form a covenant relationship (solidarity) with individuals dismembered – by disability, by illness, by disadvantage, . . . -- from the ‘normal’ spheres of society. Doing so creates perspective and uncovers unexamined/untested assumptions. (2) Maintain a perspective outside one’s own culture. (3) ‘Education’ -- ex duco (‘to lead out of’) -- necessitates separating from those who would teach/form you in an authoritarian manner. ‘Education’ is associated with personal responsibility. (4) Have the courage to subject your ideas to the unrestricted criticism possible in the ‘marketplace’ as well as to the self-examination of the ‘wilderness’. I am hesitant to consider seriously the ideas/views of those who fall short of or lack either of these experiences in their life journeys. (5) I recommend Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies as a tool to sharpen and refine your ability to think critically.

Fragment -- #79

[October 1998 journal entry]
I am confident that, by pushing myself toward complete and unrestricted openness to criticism of my thoughts/views, I will have fewer but more reliable thoughts/views. To do so is inseparable from being ‘with the world face to face’. To do less is to fall back into idolatries.

Fragment -- #78

[October 1998 journal entry]
In a recent breakfast meeting discussion with the small group of you physicians staffing a rural Appalachia community health center, I prompted them to reflect on the goal of making poor individuals feel welcome. We discussed how such efforts leave us feeling very self-conscious, impotent, out of place. Such experiences are intense. To make someone – especially someone who is poor – feel truly welcome is a difficult and at times threatening task that requires deep motivation.

Fragment -- #77

[October 1998 journal entry]
Animals (on a spectrum from more to less noticeable) and humans (with the same provision and at least from prenatal through early childhood phases) appear to share to some degree such qualities as honesty, trust, simplicity, pleasure over pain, sympathy, forgiveness. Humans gain sufficient reflective capacity to revise, redefine, question these traits. This capacity results in such varying traits as altruism, martyrdom, violence, materialism, prejudices, history/story, friendship, . . . All creatures would ideally be in settings that protect, encourage, facilitate full maturation.

Fragment -- #76

[October 1998 journal entry]
I feel as if I am entering a ‘house of cards’ when I enter a ‘religious’ gathering or when I am with someone who holds/follows a ‘religious’ paradigm (esp., pre-modern and evangelical-fundamentalist interpretations of events/experiences).

Fragment -- #75

Fragment -- #75

[October 1998 journal entry]
Either (1) generosity is a core character trait resulting in the impulse to be generous or (2) one does the minimal to ease the conscience in order to get on with what one really sees/values. The former requires a certain calculation re dealing with limits. The latter leads to a certain calculation in terms of surrendering as little as possible or giving in ways that bring self-reward or . . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #18

Reflections from journal entries

69 [October 1998 journal entry]
What if Bonhoeffer had survived? Might he have sought and/or been drawn back to a place in the ‘religious’ sphere? Might he have turned away from the embryonic ‘non-religious’ ideas in his prison correspondence? Would he have withheld the prison correspondence from circulation/publication?

70 [November 1998 journal entry]
Thoughts in light of my recent American Society for Bioethics and Humanities presentation re physician-assisted death practiced in Holland –

1. ‘Religious’ opponents of physician-assisted death almost exclusively come from the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum.
   
2. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum represents an extremely low view of the individual and of culture (e.g., ‘the fall’, original sin, premillenial end-time predictions of chaos and decay, . . .).
3. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum represents thought worlds that discourage adherents from ‘with the world face to face’ accountability or struggle and from serious/unrestricted criticism. Those in leadership positions promote thought worlds in which the ideal adherent does not think seriously or radically.
   
4. Those on the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum do not seriously consider other views, since the ‘truth’ is so obvious and accessible (to them) that the only way to account for others who do not see as they see is to question their motives. This in turn fuels suspicion.
   
5. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum absorbs – to the point of draining the substance/vitality out of – all life experience into a single-factor paradigm in which appeal to ‘divine will’ dominates.
   
6. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum is aligned with hymnody that reflects a “It is well with my soul” disposition (a hymn that has the participants say, “whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, ‘It is well with my soul’”).
   
7. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum reduces individuals to sheep and goats or righteous and unrighteous categories, confident that they constitute the sheep/righteous (because of election, substitutionary atonement, ongoing grace, . . . – concepts that have little to do with actual ‘righteousness’) and that all others are corrupt.
   
8. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum permits no place for advocacy of autonomy (as such stands in opposition to theonomy) or for advocacy of democracy (as such stands in opposition to theocracy).
   
9. The fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum builds around the admonition and implication of “God will not tempt or test you beyond what you are able to bear” (thus discouraging any ‘unbearable’ assessment of suffering).
   
10. Those on the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum are not bothered by charges of inconsistency in thought.
    
11. Those on the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum assume there is a ‘biblical view’ that predates modern experience/discussion and, therefore, separates ‘the truth’ from modern inquiry.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #27

[September 1998 journal entry]
I returned to Baltimore a few weeks after my close friend Tom Elkin’s death to assist his wife with the task of going through Tom’s material at home and at his Johns Hopkins office. Tom died suddenly at home on August 12 in the early morning hours. He was 49 years old. The Ob/Gyn Department chair had left Tom’s office untouched. After several minutes sitting silently together, Tom’s wife spoke quietly, “It feels like Tom will come rushing through the office door at any moment. How do we go on? What was it all about?” I said, “It was about reaching out to young physicians who had not yet lost their resolve to be humane and to exercise a resolute social conscience in the practice of medicine.” It was a moving experience to return to Tom’s office for the first time since his death. Tom’s wife asked if I had any perspectives on his death. As we sat together in Tom’s office, I shared the following reflections with her.

1. By trying to make sense of Tom’s life I find my way past/through the need to make sense of his death.
2. I see some parallels with Bonhoeffer’s death and M. L. King’s death in that Tom’s life ended while he was still ‘on the field’ and before he became too out of sync with his times.
   
3. It was natural for Tom to have seen signs of another journey and challenge at Johns Hopkins at the time of his death since he approached life was forward-looking.
   
4. f Tom had died while engage in medical relief work in Africa in 1975, it would have been too early to interpret his life, whereas by 1998 he had lived long enough to interpret his life.
   
5. Tom was old enough to remember an era/setting when academic medicine was distinctive (versus the present managed care and business setting, a paradigm shift that made his vision increasingly antiquated).
   
6. Tom’s sons have inherited a ‘good name’, but such can be difficult to manage given where Tom ‘set the bar’.
7. Tom and I worked so well together because we were both ‘out of the box’ re our peers.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #26

[September 1998 journal entry]
I recently met a faculty member with Johns Hopkins’ Obstetrics and Gynecology Department who held my recently deceased close friend and colleague Tom Elkins in high regard. She admitted, “I believe I have to learn to think again, beyond blind and mindless reacting, and this both pleases and frightens me.”

Seeing Jesus from Below #19

[August 1998 journal entry]

Thesis: The ‘gospel’ means to be genuinely present with the dismembered “for whom God’s heart aches”. ‘Dismembered’ is a broader category than ‘poor’ – e.g., victims of multiple sclerosis and other neurological illnesses or AIDS. Such individuals may or may not be ‘poor’. Vulnerable, yes.

Seeing Jesus from Below #18

[August 1998 journal entry]
The following thoughts stem from a breakfast discussion with a small group of young physicians re ‘freedom from affluence’.

1. ‘Affluence’ -- a Latin combination that means ‘to flow toward’ -- is a danger, a risk (e.g., false security, isolation/insulation, disrespect toward others, prejudice, exploitation).
2. Education, gender, ethnicity, intelligence, health, . . . weave into the formation and expression of affluence.
3. ‘Jesus’ claims to experience and to be pointing to what is authentic affluence (i.e., a way of being that is ‘blessed’).
4. How ‘free’ from affluence must I be to maintain my integrity? – e.g., sufficiently free to be grateful, to give indiscriminate attention to the human situation, and to accept accountability.
5. I continue to find value in Liberation Theologians’ ‘hermeneutic suspicion’ re the perspectives/interpretations of the affluent.
6. It is ironic that promoting education, work, and culture assigns value to being affluent.
7. At what level should one’s lifestyle, hopes, and goals be set beyond which unrestrained generosity is expressed and below which self-defense and survival dominate?
8. ‘Jesus’ -- in Sermon on the Mount type guidance -- calls for a way of being that leads to devaluing material possessions and reprioritizing values.
9. I intend to be free from a ‘high maintenance’ disposition toward and experience with material possessions.
10. I must overcome affluent habits that keep me from respecting a poor person.
11. To promote education is to promote at least some meanings of ‘affluence’.
12. Having long-range vision/goals is a privilege of the affluent.

Fragment #74

[September 1998 journal entry]
I recently began prompting a weekly Bonhoeffer reading group. I am guiding them through Bonhoeffer’s December 1942 essay – “After Ten Years”. The following thoughts stem from a discussion with the reading group about anti-Semitism:

My earliest experience with someone Jewish was my friendship with Joe a schoolmate and fellow football player in my small hometown in Western Kentucky.

I recall little or no discussion of anti-Semitism -- especially in relation to the beginnings/history of Christianity – in my youth. The religious language and perspective in which I was raised disenfranchised the Jewish community (e.g., “Old Testament” rather than ‘Jewish/Hebrew scripture’, Jews referenced harshly as “them”, comments that “they rejected/killed Christ”, . . .) and left anti-Semitic comments unaddressed or, if expressed, unchallenged.

My sensitivity re Jewish history/experience deepened/broadened when the methodology for my study of history began to be critical in a scholarly way during my final two undergraduate years at Murray State University and matured during my doctoral work. My ongoing study of Bonhoeffer since 1976 has ‘kept open the Jewish question’ (adapting one of his phrases). My special/centering relationship with my very close friend Shelly Korones, MD, (whose Jewish roots reach back to his grandparents’ flight to the United States from Czarist Russia) since 1985 is the defining experience for me.

‘Pharisees’ are presented in reductionist and biased ways in the Synoptic Gospels, as are ‘the Jews’ in the Gospel of John and in the Acts of the Apostles. Note how such writings (which, as canonical, enjoy authority within the ‘religious’ sphere), if considered uncritically and without attention to the wider historical context/resources, lead either to anti-Semitic attitudes/behavior or permit such to develop/occur unchecked.

Are there any individuals/groups it is theologically/ethically justified to isolate, segregate, attack, eliminate? Note that to answer this question a decision has to be made re the nature and use of Jewish scriptures and Christian scriptures. In other words, if one takes a ‘flat’ view, such violence will not be questioned. If one takes a more critical view, such violence will be questioned.

I would propose (1) to protect and assure every individual’s/group’s freedom of speech, but (2) to restrict, discipline, and prohibit discriminatory behavior (including verbal abuse and exploitation as well as violence) in the public/common domain. I would support doing so re economic and political as well as religious variations on fundamentalism. This proposal implies confidence in the outcome of open and free thought (which in turn implies cultivation of the ability to think).

Fragment #73

[December 2005 journal entry]
At the invitation of some friends, I attended the Christmas Eve service conducted by a large Presbyterian PCA church located in an affluent suburb of Memphis. This church is in many ways a typical mega-church – e.g., heavily orchestrated (both musically and otherwise), evangelical tilted toward fundamentalist theology, media savvy services, largely affluent membership, recreational facilities (with a full calendar of activities), police and security guard parking assistance, tension with surrounding neighborhood organizations over zoning restrictions, a coffee shop in the foyer, . . . . The church is in some ways not a typical mega-church – e.g., understated architecture/décor, casual dress, a mission not limited to itself, financially supportive of struggling churches.

As we returned to my friends’ house after the service, I anticipated I would be asked my thoughts about the service. The question came shortly after dinner was served. I expressed a few polite reflections I considered true but superficial. When questioned further, I explained – “The many references in the music led me to think about Bethlehem today as well as in the time of Jesus.” I then described the violence, the thirty-foot ‘security’ wall that now surrounds the town, the clashes between Palestinian residents and Israeli solders at checkpoints, the healthcare crises, and the despair I have seen/heard in Bethlehem during trips there the past two years. I went on to observe – “I reminded myself throughout the service that the Israeli and the United States governments most closely align with Rome in Jesus’ day, that Orange Mound or Binghampton in Memphis (very depressed/decayed sections of the city) most closely align with Bethlehem in Jesus’ day.” I chose not to comment on the parallels I see between a mega-church and the ‘religious’ establishment that was so antagonistic to ‘Jesus’. Nor did I express my doubt that more than a handful of those assembled for the Christmas Eve service ever venture into an Orange Mound or a Binghampton and, therefore, my doubt that more than a handful would have trekked to the ancient Bethlehem highlighted so prominently in the service.

I tried to use a soft/gentle tone. I would have remained silent if I had not been questioned. Once questioned further, I would have felt neither peaceful nor honest if I had stopped with the true though superficial responses. But did I go too far? I was not questioned again after the more pointed responses. I was not surprised. I dread such situations.

Fragment #72

[September 1998 journal entry] What is my ‘core’?

• There is a ‘more’ to being human (i.e., some reality/essence about being human that is beyond empirical verification) that requires a vocabulary, grammar, discourse.
• There is a reality beyond my/our perception/interpretation, thus mixing reality and my/our perception/interpretation.
• Human beings leave evidence supporting the thesis that they are the most oughtful, reflective, and imaginative of beings on earth.
• The category ‘human being’ includes variations in (1) intelligence, (2) cultural formation, (3) gender, (4) individual stages of existence (e.g., birth and death) – with the lower end of these variations found among human beings merging/overlapping with the higher end of the variations found among some other beings.
• ‘God’ as a reality transcends ideas of ‘God’ in human discourse due to cosmo-, socio-, and anthropomorphisms.
• Trust/conviction must include doubt.
• Integrity must be maintained.
• A political theory must affirm the individual as such and the individual as a social being.
• Ethics can be reduced to a single concept/vision – i.e., respect (i.e., re + specere).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #17 – reflections from journal entries

67 [August 1998 journal entry]
‘Non-religious’ (as distinct from ‘religious’) means

1. looking in or listening to the ‘religious’ sphere from points outside – however far from or near to – the ‘religious’ sphere,
2. being conscious of the transcendent ‘from below’,
3. living with doubt,
   
4. moving from ethics to theology,
5. moving from existential death toward authentic being.

68 [September 1998 journal entry]
I continue to attempt to delineate as fully and specifically as possible that which I have rejected/surrendered re ‘religion’ as I have pursued a ‘with the world face to face’ way of being/living – e.g., I have rejected/surrendered

1. assumptions re Jewish scriptures and Christian scriptures (e.g., a set 66-document ‘canon’, ‘inerrancy’, ‘infallibility’, that there is ‘the biblical view’ on any subject),
2. an ethics/theology paradigm that reduces life experiences to a single factor – ‘the will of God’,
3. political/social structures and theories rooted in theocracy and/or monarchy,
4. slavery as an unchallenged social institution,
5. a demeaning/devalued view of women,
6. a pre-modern and pre-scientific cosmology,
7. demons,
8. ideas/views that would tolerate anti-Semitism,
9. a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11,
10. an idyllic view of the beginnings of human history,
11. exclusivity and sectarianism,
12. substitutionary interpretations of atonement,
13. christologies that minimize or render meaningless the humanity of ‘Jesus’,
14. a ‘be fruitful and multiply’ approach to reproduction,
15. certainty,
16. . . . .

Fragment -- #71

[19 October 2008]
My wife, youngest daughter, and I were privileged to be among the 100,000+ who gathered yesterday at the St. Louis arch as a demonstration of Obama's integrating vision. I have included a Wall Street Journal photograph from that memorable experience, to which I have inserted an arrow to point to our approximate location. I have also included a few photographs I took from amidst the crowd. Obama would be an even stronger candidate/president with a few more years’ experience, but I cannot imagine he could have a more credible/seasoned community of counselors/advisors. I sadly admit the past twenty years have demonstrated that my generation – the Vietnam War generation – is too torn/scared by that war/era to produce leaders capable of drawing together a commanding majority or of stimulating a working consensus.


[25 October 2008]
It is very energizing to now be living in a swing state and in a city/neighborhood that is so decidedly supportive of the new directions represented by the Obama/Biden ticket. Soon after moving into our St. Louis home in late August, Barbara and I placed a campaign poster in our front yard. Barbara has been volunteering at a nearby Obama campaign office. Here are a few examples (in no particular order) of numerous reflections/concerns this election and the larger national/global context –

1. Critically thoughtful and politically responsible Congressional Republicans – they seem to be disappearing as the Republican Party increasingly has during this campaign season identified with the social/religious ‘far right’. Where are Senators Hagel, Snow, Collins, et al? Where and with whom will they stand now?
2. I am ‘liberal’ in the classic sense of championing freedom of critical thought and responsible action. And I am ‘liberal’ in being aligned with so many changes that are now rooted in our society due to the tireless/courageous efforts of ‘liberals’ in the past – e.g., the abolition of slavery, the abolition of abusive child labor, the liberty of women to vote, desegregation, civil and human rights for minorities, reproductive freedom/choice for women, environmental protections, . . . . Without ‘liberals’ none of these battles would have been won.
3. Restudying the text and the origins of the Constitution over the past several months has deepened my criticism of and opposition to a ‘strict constructionist’ approach to the Constitution.
4. I checked the etymology/meaning of ‘maverick’ which turns out to be an ‘Old West’ term coined when a Texas cattle rancher Samuel Maverick (d. 1870) persisted in refusing to brand his calves. Thus the metaphorical image of a ‘maverick’ as unclassified, independent, nonconformist, dissenting. Erratic, illogical, inconsistent – i.e., the way the McCain/Palin campaign have looked to me -- have nothing to do with the ‘maverick’ metaphor.
5. I definitely agree changes are needed at the national level. I find it very odd that McCain and – even more blatantly – Palin have undermined every incumbent Republican Representative and Senator as they have attempted to dissociate from and criticize the Bush/Cheney administration. I watched in vain for McCain or Palin to specify the changes they would pursue if in office – more executive secrecy? more power to the executive branch (including VP)? more Guantanamo Bays? more torture of prisoners? more surveillance? more tax cuts? new preemptive invasions? more deregulation? larger national debt? more manipulation of scientific data? more ‘fundamentalism’ in the White House? . . . ? If not, then what? Confronting/reducing greed would be helpful (if attainable), but hardly sufficient.
6. My deepest objection to ‘fundamentalism’ is to ‘fundamentalism’ as a mindset – whether expressed religiously, socially, or politically. When truth ceases to be sought (even after years of searching) and honesty ceases to be valued, a fundamentalist mindset begins.

[30 October 2008]
Re the United States presidential election -- I continue to be hopeful and cautiously confident that Barack Obama will be elected next Tuesday. My wife and I are very active supporters. Our youngest daughter -- 19 years old -- is having her political awakening at this very important time. I am pleased the Obama campaign has conducted a very honorable and impressively sophisticated campaign. The McCain campaign has instead opted for the very dark path taken by the past two Bush campaigns, seeking to capitalize on fear and prejudices. The reality I find disheartening and embarrassing is that 30-35% of the United States voting public lives and thinks in a very anti-modern/anti-scientific worldview. Add another 10% of the United States voting public that is uncertain and inexperienced in finding an alternative worldview and the cultural divide in the United States becomes evident. A massive landslide is needed as a statement to the 30-35% + 10% in our society that we are closing the proverbial book on being defined, constrained, or intimidated by a fundamentalist mindset/worldview that is antithetical to democracy, individual freedom/accountability, respect, science, . . . . I have experienced the struggle and sacrifice required to escape from this black hole. A fundamentalist mindset/worldview only has capacity for controlling all or retreating with no control. Having committed for more than 30 years to grasping for full control, the fundamentalist mindset/worldview to which McCain sold his soul in his attempt to win the presidency will not retreat without a desperate last gasp. A massive landslide will be a crucial step forward.

[5 November 2008]
It is truly a ‘new day’! Barack Obama’s decisive margins of victory -- popular vote and electoral college vote -- are similar to Bill Clinton’s margins of victory (in stark contrast to the razor-thin differences in 2000 and 2004). I sense the potential in Obama’s election in the enthusiasm and renewed joy/hope that has risen as a steady crescendo among a marvelously diverse majority of the United States voting public over the past several months. I certainly shared with many others a deep sigh of relief when Obama’s election was confirmed with results that could not be contested in court by the cadre of lawyers the McCain campaign had assembled. I view this election as the first of many necessary steps toward the United States accepting accountability for and working to repair the profound damage inflicted by the Bush/Cheney/et al administration on our country, on the international community, and on the natural environment we all share. I am thinking of this election as analogous to a very difficulty pregnancy. Now the parenting of these freshly born ideas and encompassing vision begins!

Image #21

St. Louis . . . 2008 . . . Obama presidential campaign rally . . . remembering segregation . . . imaging integration . . .

Image #20

St. Louis . . . 2008 . . . Obama presidential campaign rally . . . what does the future hold? . . .

Image #19

St. Louis . . . 2008 . . . Obama presidential campaign rally . . . walking to The Arch . . . a child ponders hope . . .

Image #18

St. Louis . . . 2008 . . . Obama presidential campaign rally . . . 100,000+ . . . hands expressing joy . . .

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #17

[July 1998 journal entry]
If I were to be asked for a short list of anchoring texts for me in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, I would list – Job, Ecclesiastes, Philemon, the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (both in Matthew and in Luke), Habakkuk, Psalm 46, Psalm 73, the Good Samaritan parable, Matthew 25:31-46, Mark 6 re ‘marketplace’, Micah 6:6-8 (and similar statements in the prophets).