Fragment -- #87

[February 1999 journal entry]
While reading again through Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence and after reading Chalmer’s What Is This Thing Called Science? (re the rise and fall of scientific theories and paradigms), I have been thinking about the many events of broad/horrific tragedy (e.g., WWII holocaust, Cambodia, Soviet gulags, African famines, Guatemala-Honduras hurricane in 1998, . . .). I have seen little evidence that such events have caused for very many a Job-like or Bonhoeffer-like shaking and discrediting of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm deep enough for the paradigm itself to collapse. Why not?

Fragment -- #86

[February 1999 journal entry]
Re ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, ‘post-modern’ paradigms -- (1) I am convinced that human beings are naturally/instinctively oriented toward building on observation and on empirical thinking when attempting to interpret life experiences. Therefore, ‘modern’ as a historical phase/period did not introduce for the first time a ‘from below’ method. This period represents an attempt (1a) to shift weight (and responsibility) to this ‘from below’ method, (1b) to be disciplined and rigorous in this ‘from below’ method, (1c) to achieve the intellectual freedom necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1d) to promote the egalitarian disposition necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1e) to make possible the education necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed. (2) To be ‘post-modern’ is necessarily to have been and, in an essential sense, to still be ‘modern’. (3) I am not deterred by the common objection/criticism that ‘modern’ leads to no longer ‘needing God’ when ‘need’ in this objection/criticism reflects a childish self-image rather than an adult self-image. Instead, the ‘non-religious’ approach I am following is radically (i.e., to the root) separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s language and thinking re ‘needing God’ in a childish manner. (4) I do not agree with those theologians who, based on the current ‘post-modern’ enthusiasm, feel free to walk away from and ignore ‘modern’ scholarship/questions/discussions.

Fragment -- #85

[February 1999 journal entry]
Re ‘experience’ as a criterion for concluding an idea is true/trustworthy -- (1) Only via indiscriminate experience can one come to the Job 42:7 approval of the thoughts/views the ‘scrap heap’ Job expressed to his three close friends. (2) If ‘God’ is ambiguous, then the function and importance of indiscriminate experience or judgment ‘from below’ increases. (3) The core hermeneutic task we face is to interpret our experience. (4) The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm reduces human experience to intention and eventually to divine intention (leaving no place for an experiential or statistical ‘from below’ interpretation). (5) ‘God’ is an inference drawn from and understood in light of the interpretation of experience. (6) What is analogous to the ‘null hypothesis’? Perhaps that there is no compelling meaning for the term ‘God’. (7) To disregard or remove from consideration all experiences that challenge the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is analogous in statistics to imposing a bias on the study sample. (8) With little information, many inferences are possible; with increased information, many such inferences are weeded out.

Fragment -- #84

[February 1999 journal entry]
An ‘examined life’ entails (1) indiscriminate and radical (i.e., to the root) self-criticism and (2) the willingness, readiness, and courage to take risks in life.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #57

[March 1999 journal entry]
Note the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience does not appear to have any profound impact on/for those around him other than his wife. Note the explanations of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s sufferings offered by his three close friends illustrate the explanations of human suffering that are generated and permitted by/within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – e.g., ‘proportionality’ (i.e., ‘you prosper or suffer no more than you deserve’) or ‘it will be better in the future’ or ‘you reap what you sow’ or ‘you are not tested beyond what you can bear’ or ‘there must be some undisclosed sinfulness’ or ‘there must be some divine purpose beyond human comprehension’ or . . . . Note the caravan travelers mentioned in the story/play Job are located outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle. Their stories become the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s most significant resource. Their wisdom is more authentic and persuasive than is ‘religious’ wisdom. Note the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm fosters/promotes an ‘entitlement’ spirituality, ethic, and theology. Note that, for those not troubled by tragic human suffering in the theological way the ‘scrapheap’ Job was troubled due to his being within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, a spirituality becomes possible that is characterized by (1) humility, (2) empathy, (3) gratefulness, (4) self-discipline, (5) ability to be truly present with sufferers, (6) . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #56

[March 1999 journal entry]
Draw a circle representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Inside this circle, there can be no radical or enduring compulsion/drive to avoid, fight, correct, or minimize what appears tragic in human experience because to be inside the circle is to think such experiences reflect the intention/will of ‘God’. In/near the center of this circle are those who claim not to be troubled as was the ‘scrapheap’ Job by ‘innocent’ suffering. As the move is made from the center point outward to the perimeter, being troubled is increasingly experienced/expressed by those inside the circle. Now draw an outward winding/opening circle with its center point on the perimeter of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle. This outward winding/opening circle represents deepening regard for ‘innocent’ suffering. Consciousness of ‘innocent’ suffering deepens as exposure to the breadth/depth of ‘innocent’ suffering increases. The ‘scrapheap’ Job, as portrayed in his exchanges with his three close friends, should be located on/near the perimeter of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle and in the midst of the outward winding/opening ‘innocent’ suffering circle. Now, completely separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle, draw another broken/fuzzy circle representing those outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm who are face to face with the harsh realities of human suffering, but who are not troubled in the theological way the ‘scrapheap’ Job was troubled by tragic human suffering because they do not respond to or interpret tragic human experiences as ‘the intention/will of God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #55

[March 1999 journal entry]
Premise: The ‘scrapheap’ Job is ‘troubled’ (beyond the sheer pain of his condition) because his expectations are rooted in the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm. He cannot say, “I’ve been dealt a bad hand”. He cannot refer to luck or misfortune or chance or randomness. Instead, he expects to be dealt a good hand and cannot (with integrity) avoid challenging/questioning the dealer. (Note both a personal factor – i.e., the dealer – and a random factor – i.e., the shuffle – limit this analogy for understanding the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #54

[March 1999 journal entry]

In what way (if at all) is being ‘non-religious’ linked to being ‘modern’? Since the story/play Job, the Ecclesiastes essay, and ‘Jesus’ are subject to ‘non-religious’ interpretations, is the answer ‘not necessarily or essentially’? Perhaps the question should be amended – In what way (if at all) is being ‘non-religious’ today linked to being ‘modern’? For instance, ‘religion’ has taken certain views/forms in reaction to ‘modern’ developments. Also ‘non-religious’ alternatives are likely to be to some degree ‘modern’. Another question – What are common traits re being ‘non-religious’ in the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay on the one hand and today on the other hand?

Seeing 'Jesus' From Below #23

[February 1999 journal entry]

While out on a practice drive with my daughter, we talked about her careful study of Charlotte Bronte’s novels/characters (as well as the character Anne in Anne of Green Gables and the character Jo in Little Women). I asked her if she thinks her sense of self has been and is enhanced by these novels/characters. I also asked if she finds herself trying to be the characters with whom she most identifies. I later related these two questions to what it means to ‘follow Jesus’. I proposed that to ‘follow Jesus’ in the latter sense of trying to ‘be Jesus’ diminishes one’s self, is artificial, and is not redemptive in an experiential sense. Instead, I proposed that to ‘follow Jesus’ in the former sense of having your sense of self enriched by carefully considering Jesus’ way of being is redemptive without diminishing one’s self.

Seeing 'Jesus' From Below #22

[January 1999 journal entry]

A close friend recently introduced me to the music of Rich Mullins. He gave me the last Rich Mullins CD (a two-disc set based on the demos he cut shortly before he died in a travel accident) and explained the nature, course, end of Mullins’ life. On the first of the two discs, Mullins plays/performs alone the demos for what turned out to be his last songs. On the second of the two discs, his band and various celebrated ‘Christian music artists’ (whose commercial interests and affluent lifestyles he did not share) present/interpret the demo songs in a more polished and commercially shaped form. I was drawn to Mullins alone; repelled by the ‘Christian music artists’. An analogy crossed my mind – i.e., that the teaching and life experiences of ‘Jesus’ behind/before Christian scripture are parallel to Mullins alone on disc one and the Christian scripture writers/ings are parallel to celebrated ‘Christian music artists’ on disc two.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #19

– reflections from journal entries

71 [February 1999 journal entry] I recently had a conversation about whether or not Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have remained on the ‘non-religious’ path he had begun to describe/interpret in his prison correspondence. I think there is strength in this speculation. I developed three lines of reflection in the conversation. (1) The post-war draw/inclination was toward rebuilding (as much and as quickly as possible) the familiar or ‘norm’ (analogous to the ending of the story/play Job). Guardians of the ‘religious’ tradition/sphere -- especially the leaders of the ‘Confessing Church’ and those ‘religious’ leaders who took safer positions during the Nazi/Hitler years, but minus the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ – were poised to do this rebuilding in the 'religious' sphere in post-war Germany. Bonhoeffer’s ‘religionless’ ideas were and would for some time after the war remain unknown apart from the Bethges and a few former students. The ‘Confessing Church’ leaders who had known Bonhoeffer before his imprisonment would have expected Bonhoeffer to return to being a pastor/theologian as in his pre-1939 Confessing Church years. (2) The focus/interest within the ‘religious’ sphere re Bonhoeffer continues to stop short of a radical (i.e., to the root) interpretation of or defining link with the possible directions Bonhoeffer’s emerging ‘religionless’ ideas in the prison correspondence could have taken him. (3) Bonhoeffer would have had to reposition himself outside the ‘religious’ sphere (including giving up pastoral or ‘religious’ academic appointments).

72 [February 1999 journal entry] Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Eberhard Bethge experienced and spoke of ‘friendship in the singular’ as distinct from the ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’ of traditional Lutheran theology (i.e., state, work, church, family). My definition/use of societal ‘spheres’ corresponds to some degree with the Lutheran definition/use of ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’. One difference is that I have more differentiated spheres in mind than represented in the Lutheran tradition – e.g., education, arts, medicine. Another difference would be the correspondence of my references to ‘spheres’ with existential references to ‘stages’ and to societal controls imposed on individuals. ‘Spheres’ constitute the infrastructure of a society. Such ‘spheres’ determine the rights, obligations, and prerequisites by/through which participants know who they are and how they should act. Bonhoeffer wondered if ‘freedom’ (with which he associated ‘friendship in the singular’) should be considered a ‘mandate’ or ‘order’. I wonder if ‘freedom’ (and, therefore, ‘friendship in the singular’) is possible only beyond ‘spheres’? I would propose that a societal ‘sphere’ can tolerate a limited/conditional ‘freedom’ (i.e., up to the point of threatening or challenging the ‘sphere’). I would also propose that the ‘freedom’ Bonhoeffer linked with ‘friendship in the singular’ (as well as with his ‘religionless Christianity’ and his last thoughts about ‘church’) is beyond, outside, and independent to all societal ‘spheres’.

73 [February 1999 journal entry] The ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am following requires that I retain/protect my independence while participating in the medical sphere. Doing so means (1) that I must always be willing to surrender any sense of place/privilege (i.e., I must not be seduced by offers of security), (2) that I must never be more than a guest (i.e., I must not seduced by the possibility of tenure), (3) that I must resist a ‘uniform’ look or manner/disposition.

74 [February 1999 journal entry] The following reflections came after a conversation with Eberhard and Renate Bethge late into the night during a recent visit with them in their home outside Bonn. (1) Some search for or seek out the ‘freedom’ and the resulting identity that are not predetermined by societal ‘spheres’. Others are forced to do so without desire for or valuing the task/search. Is one group more likely than the other to re-root themselves in ‘freedom’ and, therefore, in radical liberty from societal ‘spheres’? (2) The deeper the experience in and loyalty to a ‘sphere’, the more diminished ‘freedom’ becomes. It is critical to retain sufficient strength to be able to overcome the gravitational pull inward/back to the sphere’s center. Otherwise, the defining experience and character associated with ‘freedom’ are lost. Perhaps a core purpose of my low profile and ‘arcane’ gatherings on the margins of ‘spheres’ – e.g., the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings in New Orleans or the Bonhoeffer reading group here or our family’s dinner table talks, or . . . – are as much to protect my ability to exit from societal ‘spheres’ as it is to create a strategy to leaven them.

75 [February 1999 journal entry] Bonhoeffer anticipated/predicted in his prison letters to Bethge the demise/marginalization of ‘religion’ after World War I in Germany and other European nations. This demise/marginalization did not happen completely in any of these countries (e.g., to varying degrees in Holland, Germany, France; less so in Italy, Spain). ‘Religion’ survived in England and thrived in the United States after World War I. The point here is (1) not that a ‘non-religious’ alternative direction is invalid, but (2) that becoming thoroughly ‘non-religious’ requires turning away from the available safety/familiarity of ‘religion’ and develops with an overlapping of language (e.g., ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘love’, ‘evil’, . . .).

One part of any writing (for me, at least) re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics has to be an explanation of how long, laborious, and complicated it is to become thoroughly ‘non-religious’. This process for me has stretched from the seed ideas in the mid-1970s to the departure by 1991 from any official place/role in the ‘religious’ sphere. And then from 1992 forward, this process has involved finalizing the break while raising children. Much of my thought since 1992 has focused on interpreting the experience of becoming and remaining truly/meaningfully ‘non-religious’.

To be ‘non-religious’ (both in reference to the ‘religious’ sphere and to the ‘religious’ character of every societal sphere) is to be awkward within any societal sphere, to be a visitor or guest within any societal sphere, to be discontent within any societal sphere.

How likely is it that very many will dare to or be compelled to seek a ‘non-religious’ path? Does it require (1) traumatic exposure to ‘innocent suffering’? (2) a spontaneous/non-structured personality type? (3) a greater than average intellectual ability? (4) a classical education (including history and historical methodology)? (5) an advanced theological education? (6) . . . ? In a recent conversation with a close physician friend, he answered that such traits and more are required in order to cut through layer after layer of insulation separating ‘religion’ and ‘world’.

A ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’ entails the gathering/interaction of individuals each one of whom has leadership traits (1) because each one has experienced an individual/solitary passage to a ‘non-religious’ path and (2) because each one can maintain his/her spiritual journey alone if necessary. Are there any ‘followers’ (with a hierarchy of ‘leaders’ analogous to the ‘religious’ sphere) in a ‘non-religious’ community? I do not think so among those already on this path. What are the implications for parenting in a ‘non-religious’ manner?

76 [March 1999 journal entry] Must one have previously been ‘religious’ in order to be(come) ‘non-religious’? Bonhoeffer was. And I was. Is there a parallel to the necessity of being ‘modern’ in order to be ‘post-modern’?

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #28

[February1999 journal entry]

‘Dignity’ has become a fixed criterion in discussions re end-of-life decision making. (1) How are ‘dignify/ied’ and ‘humiliating/ed’ used in everyday discourse? (2) Can life/death be humiliating and yet experienced in a dignified manner? (3) What are societal/community responsibilities, in comparison to individual responsibilities, for an individual’s retaining ‘dignity’ in death?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #53

[November 1998 journal entry]

Life experiences pushed the story/character of the ‘scrap heap’ Job (and also Ecclesiastes) forward into an independent, foundational, primary position for me. The approach to ethics and spirituality I am taking is rooted/anchored in the affirmation (42:7) of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Accordingly, my interpretations will be compatible and consistent with Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Doing so means rethinking each writing in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture in light of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Doing so means interpreting Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts without ‘religious’ or ‘orthodox’ restrictions (including perceptions of ‘Jesus’). Doing so means interpreting the ‘scrap heap’ Job directly and freely in relation to the breadth/depth of human suffering. I have a hermeneutic suspicion that ‘religious’ interpretations of the story/play Job are designed to endorse and reinforce ‘religious’ interests/institutions. Much of human suffering cannot be reduced to ‘religious’ explanations without violating the integrity of the sufferer/s.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #52

[November 1998 journal entry]
[November 2008 NOTE: A mutual acquaintance introduced me to a Hebrew and Jewish Wisdom Literature professor – Bob -- shortly after we had completed our move in November 1998 to Williamsburg, KY, where I began work with a nearby community health center. Bob and his family attended First Baptist Church in Williamsburg, a congregation with a sizable contingent sympathetic toward the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship opposition to the fundamentalist remaking of the Southern Baptist denomination engineered in the late1970s by Adrian Rodgers et al. Bob is a couple of years older than I. He was raised in Virginia and North Carolina. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1971 with a major in mathematics and worked for a few years as a computer programmer and systems analyst before entering Midwestern Baptist Seminary (1997 MDiv). Before beginning doctoral studies at Southern Seminary, he completed the ThM program at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. His principal professors at Southern were Drs. Owens, Tate, and Polhill. He completed his dissertation – The Dark Side of God: The Antagonistic God in the Mosaic Traditions -- in 1983 under Dr. Tate’s supervision. James Crenshaw was his external reader. That year he joined Cumberland College’s Religion and Philosophy Department (which he has chaired since 1990). At my suggestion, Bob and I began in November 1998 meeting twice most months for lunch discussions. I submitted a set of ideas in tutorial fashion, seeking Bob’s response as a specialist in Hebrew and in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Most of our discussions were textual, topical, and word studies rooted in the story/play Job and in Ecclesiastes. I made sure the question – “And shall we continue these discussions?” – remained open for Bob as we looked evermore deeply into my ‘non-religious’ journey. I did not want him to feel cornered/trapped. When I left the community health center ten years later to fill my present position with Barnes-Jewish Hospital, he had continued to answer “Yes” with an enthusiasm that matched mine.]

Bob gave me today his translation and related word study of Job 42:7. This material from Bob confirmed and deepened my intent to ‘do theology’ founded on and anchored by the 42:7 affirmation of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thought/views. Doing so requires radical rethinking of every facet of ethics, and spirituality. This is what I have been attempting for at least the past twenty years. Note that Job – from the ‘scrap heap’ – is outside his ‘religious’ sphere, challenges his longstanding assumptions, refuses to conform to or endorse the ‘religious’ paradigm of his three close friends in order to retain or regain their support. The implications are profound for (1) how to pray, (2) what texts to treat as canonical, (3) hermeneutics, (4) understanding the thought of ‘Jesus’, (5) how to conceive of ‘God’, (6) the basis for ‘ethics’, (7) how to respond to human suffering, (8) liturgy, (9) . . . . I asked Bob if he wants to look down this path on which I have been walking for so many years. He said yes. I hope he continues. In order to stay on this path, it is necessary to be free – in thought, in covenants, in vocation – from ‘organized religion’. I think Bonhoeffer had reached the threshold of this freedom during his prison correspondence. Would he have crossed the threshold and not turned back?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #51

[October 1998 journal entry]
Re the story/character of Job, I am convinced (1) that Job 42:7 is the dramatic/climactic point of the story/play, (2) that the most optimistic interpretation of the ‘scrap heap’ Job’s three close friends is to speculate that they eventually join him in an experience of and search for a new theological paradigm, (3) that my efforts for the past twenty-five years have been to think out spirituality and ethics based on an affirmation of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts as reliable and compelling.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #21

[October 1998 journal entry]
Relate the “We’ve Got Lots in Common” lyrics in Charlotte’s Web to the call to “love your enemies” (e.g., Matt. 5:38-48) – i.e., focus on the resolve that we all have “lot’s in common”. Our youngest daughter Morgan -- nine years old – watches repeatedly the film of E. B. White’s children’s classic. This song from the film about respect and integration illustrates the numerous conversations in our family sparked by Charlotte’s Web.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #20

[October 1998 journal entry]
The ‘Jesus’ portrayed in the four Gospels does not lead into ‘religion’ then or today.

Fragment -- #83

[January 1999 journal entry] [1/99]
There is a ‘what if’ list of events/choices that influenced the direction my story has taken – e.g., What if I had been physically and/or mentally disabled as a young boy when I lost control of my bicycle and skidded in front of a car on a highway that stopped with the front axle just inches from my head? What if I had pursued a professional baseball career past high school? What if I had returned to my home town in rural Western Kentucky to be a teacher and coach? What if I had gone to a college/university associated with the fundamentalist ‘religious’ tradition into which I was born rather than enroll in a state university? What if I had taken the MA-PhD track in speech and communications I had envisioned early in my undergraduate years? What if I had broken my neck or worse when in 1977 I fell backward more than twenty feet off a castle wall in Carcasonne, France? What if my first wife (d. 1987) had not had Multiple Sclerosis (especially in such a devastating form)? What if I had gone to Yale for doctoral work -- as Dr. Hinson suggested I consider doing -- rather than to enter the Southern Seminary program under his supervision? What if I had returned to Oxford after finishing my doctoral program at Southern Seminary to study with Maurice Wiles had agreed to guide my Oxford DPhil thesis (plans/arrangements for which were in place by 1979 to do so)? What if my twin daughters had not been born at such a strategic time in my life? What if I had not (yet) introduced the spirituality classics course in the evening schedule slot when Dr. Elkins was looking for evening classes to attend (as preparation for his beginning an academic career in Obstetrics and Gynecology) and from which our collaborative partnership re the ethical dimensions of medicine formed? What if . . . ?

Fragment -- #82

[November 1998 journal entry]
Proposition: That all pastors and theological teachers/writers be required to be formally trained and actively/meaningfully involved in a social work vocation (with direct involvement to the point of personal risk). This proposition should be applied also to medical ethicists.