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 –
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 –
- ‘Religious’ opponents of physician-assisted death almost exclusively come from the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum.
- 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, . . .).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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’”).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- Those on the fundamentalist-to-evangelical end of the theological spectrum are not bothered by charges of inconsistency in thought.
- 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.