Fragment -- #126

[February 2000 journal entry]

My answers to “Who am I?” and “What (if anything) do I have to offer?” continue to come from the convergence of two core variables – i.e.,

1. an unwavering commitment to radical (i.e., to the root) and indiscriminate inquiry (with scholarly/professional expertise in the history of ideas and in the ethical/spiritual realities of chronic illness and medical education) and
   
2. an early and sustained existentially dangerous alignment with individuals for whom life experience is tragic and offensive.
   

The interplay and inseparability of these two core variables have left me with two observations that stand in some degree of tension – i.e.,

1. I have a growing confidence that some of the ideas and proposals coming to maturity after 25+ years ‘gestation’ are credible and compelling not only to me but to at least some others, yet
2. I am uncertain how many others have the urgency, resources, energy, and/or time necessary to make the ideas and proposals their own other than by testing them in their life experiences. (In other words, do the ideas and proposals themselves ‘ring’ sufficiently authentic or self-validating not to necessitate a similar 25+ year ‘gestation’?)

I know the core ideas and propositions that have formed for me over the past 25+ years are radical (i.e., to the root), unorthodox (by the standards of social spheres/institutions including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere), and unsettling/disturbing for many. I have drawn this deduction from

1. the reactions I have received from certain friends, family members, former students, and peers,
   
2. my thorough study of the history of ideas that have shaped western societies,
   
3. the constructive counsel I have received from Dr. Hinson (my doctoral supervisor and mentor) and from the Bethges.

Fragment -- #125

[February 2000 journal entry]

Thesis: That an association exists between

1. indiscriminately critical thinking/inquiry and
2. alignment with the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances.
   

If critical thinking/inquiry is narrowed in order to protect one’s paradigm (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm), then alignment with the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances is diminished/reduced. If one withdraws from the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances, then critical thinking/inquiry narrows.

Fragment -- #124

[February 2000 journal entry]

Note how quickly pastors have to settle/plateau in their thought (method as well as content), after which they at most are permitted/expected to speak or write only within the limits/expectations of the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm. My resistance to this restriction eventually and inevitably resulted in my separation from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere.

Fragment -- #123

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering requires that the four Gospels be critically read through two filters – i.e.,

1. modern and scientifically informed thinking and
2. the ‘in fact’ (rather than ‘apparent’) tragedy of human suffering.

Re the first filter -- it seems to me that the four Gospels reinforce and presuppose a pre-modern/pre-scientific worldview/cosmology. ‘Jesus’ is most often presented as thinking/speaking within that thought worldview/cosmology.

Re the second filter -- the tone/intent of the narrative re Herod having the infants slaughtered reflects an insensitivity to suffering/tragedy. However, several texts do encourage thoughtful attention to suffering/tragedy -- e.g.,

1. texts that challenge an institutional/ritual approach to spirituality,
2. the Beatitudes,
3. Matt. 25:31ff,
4. the reduction of the law and prophets to ‘love’,
5. the “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” question from the cross,
6. the focus on the poor and the vulnerable in Luke,
7. the stories about lepers,
8. . . . .

Fragment -- #122

[January 2000 journal entry]

Instead of considering the premises and vision of ‘democracy’ cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with the premises and vision of ‘democracy’ with the realization that little (if any) of the social, economic, and political underpinnings of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is compatible with the premises and vision of democracy.

Instead of considering modern/scientific ideas/insights cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with modern and scientific interpretations of human experience as the basis for determining what can be retained from pre-modern and pre-scientific traditions.

Instead of considering the breadth/depth of human suffering cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with innocent sufferers/ing without regard for the theological or spiritual risk/cost of such alignment.

Fragment -- #121

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘fundamentalist’ mindset today is parallel to Galileo’s opponents who refused to even look at or consider his evidence because the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox paradigm’s dogma to which they were loyal and which Galileo challenged made consideration of his evidence unnecessary.

Fragment -- #120

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘from below’ perspective I am discovering builds on a two-fold foundation – i.e.,

1. an indiscriminately and unreservedly critical methodology for thinking and
2. a resolve to take seriously the truly tragic realities of human suffering.

One result has been the realization that the ‘God’ language within the ‘religious’ sphere could not remain weight bearing for me. I could not claim the experience implied or assumed by such ‘God’ language. I do regard a ‘noumenal’ dimension beyond the human ‘spirit’ to be a reasonable derivative of what is weight bearing for me.

Fragment -- #119

[January 2000 journal entry]

What prompts/motivates individuals to move to(ward) fundamentalism? Among possible interpretations, I would propose –

1. a fear of uncertainty,
2. a need to see life as ordered and under control,
3. justification for withdrawing from open/public discourse,
4. demographic factors.

Fragment -- #118

[January 2000 journal entry]

‘Affluence’ (i.e., ‘to flow to/ward’) is evident in having choices re life decisions/experiences, in having the gift of classical/liberal education, and in having the self-confidence that leads to the ability to keep one’s footing in uncertain life circumstances. Such ‘affluence’ does not necessarily correlate with being ‘rich’ in the sense of material possessions.

Fragment -- #117

[January 2000 journal entry]

My central resolve is to focus on and respect ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. From this perspective, I critique and sift through all ideas in terms of (1) whether or not ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims are disregarded/disrespected/diminished and (2) whether or not I am distracted from this resolve.

Fragment -- #116

[December 1999 journal entry]

Astrology and similar superstitions are assumed/affirmed in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. Such superstitions are thus inherent to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #115

[December 1999 journal entry]

Note: 30,000+ died recently in Venezuela due to torrential rains and subsequent mudslides.

Fragment -- #114

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: I must either adopt poverty as a way of life or advocate/push for the socio-economic interests of the impoverished as I would for myself (or for my children). Since the former is, as a choice, inherently affluent in that I would choose such (illustrating that the traits of affluence cannot be completely shed), I have chosen to pursue a thoughtful/sacrificial effort toward the latter option.

Fragment -- #113

[December 1999 journal entry]

Interpretations of life experiences are conditional/relative

1. in that all interpretations embody an individual’s perspective on a subject,
2. in that relevant resources are not completely mastered,
3. in that new resources are being perpetually discovered/generated.

Fragment -- #112

[December 1999 journal entry]

As long as one remains loyal to a particular paradigm, the tendency is

1. to ‘cut the paradigm slack’ re questions that threaten the paradigm’s credibility,
2. to accept minimal data and argument for taking pressure off the paradigm,
3. to devalue thoroughly critical data/argument.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #32

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering builds off of the credibility/integrity of the life of ‘Jesus’ in relation to ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. I acknowledge but do not follow his participation in the pre-modern/pre-scientific thought world of his time/setting. Perhaps a kernel/husk analogy helps clarify this differentiation.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #31

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ perspective today reconstructs the life of ‘Jesus’ within and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective. The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering focuses on the life of ‘Jesus’ without appeal or reference to a ‘from above’ paradigm and without being built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #30

[January 2000 journal entry]

A core question for me is how to view/interpret ‘Jesus’ in relation to the Ecclesiastes essay and in relation to the story/play Job (specifically whether ‘Jesus’ could be written into the story as the missing character – i.e., a character who can be truly/unconditionally present with and not harm further or disrespect the ‘scrapheap’ Job). Should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (perhaps as a prophet) of his time? Or should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm of his time (implying that the writers of the four Gospels superimposed their variations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm on ‘Jesus’)?

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #29

[December 1999 journal entry]

I am convinced that the most effective way to see ‘Jesus’ comes from a Jewish vantage point rather than from a Christian ‘religious’ vantage point. One distinction of the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering is this search for a view of ‘Jesus’ from an ancient, liberal, prophetic Jewish perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #101

[January 2000 journal entry]

In pressing the ‘Santa Claus’ analogy re the nature/essence of ‘God’ language – note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm assumes there must be a ‘God’ language analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language in order to incorporate children. Therefore, ‘the game’. A ‘non-religious’ approach focuses instead on character formation and spiritual inquiry, with patience and examples for children as they mature. With this approach, adults do not use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do anticipate that children will come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’. With the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm approach, adults do use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do not anticipate that children will eventually come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #100

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ approach to spirituality/ethics begins and is anchored in/by the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from which values and ethical obligations are deduced. A ‘non-religious’ approach begins with and is anchored in/by the concrete/immediate realities of human experience, centers on value-based life decisions, and reflects on spirituality in light of such decisions/experiences.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #99

[January 2000 journal entry]

I see a spectrum for distinguishing being ‘non-religious’ from being ‘religious’ that moves from a ‘from above’ methodology across to a ‘from below’ methodology. (1) A ‘religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from above’ end of the spectrum. Most variations toward this end of the spectrum do not seek/embrace ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions. Some variations on the ‘religious’ side of the spectrum’s threshold permit guarded/selective accommodation of ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions up to but not beyond the point that retention of a place within the ‘religious’ sphere is threatened and/or to the point that the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is discredited. (2) A ‘non-religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from below’ end of the spectrum (i.e., for me, both intellectually and existentially ‘from below’) and, therefore, toward seeking/embracing ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions, with a willingness to retain/reinterpret as much as remains open to consideration from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm short of rejecting the ‘from below’ methodology.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #98

[December 1999 journal entry]

The ‘religion’ from which I have removed myself is essentially a business (e.g., the professional career ladder for clergy, the investments, the real estate, the overhead, the marketing, the dependence on customer satisfaction, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #97

[December 1999 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ methodology attempts to look at ‘the world’ through the perspective and theological norms of the ‘religious’ sphere. A ‘non-religious’ methodology begins on the ‘outside’ of the ‘religious’ sphere and looks conditionally/cautiously into the ‘religious’ sphere (for me, in light of the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #96

[December 1999 journal entry]

Preachers, pastors, and professional theologians are surrounded by and most accountable to their ‘religious’ congregations/constituencies. Being so surrounded, they cannot speak directly or authentically to any ‘non-religious’ person/s present.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #95

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: The ‘God’ language I find to be most credible is found when discussing/considering the human geist (German for ‘spirit’, ‘self’, ‘mind’). The point is not that the human geist is equivalent to ‘God’, but that language about the human geist is as near as I come to ‘God’ language that does not veer off into anthropo-, socio-, and/or cosmomorphic language that falls short of ‘God’ and that easily/frequently becomes idolatrous. Is this a way to understand Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence reference to ‘unconscious Christianity’? Can any language about ‘God’ avoid an idolatrous reduction of the word ‘God’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #70

[January 2000 journal entry]

For me, the consequences of focusing radically on the breadth/depth of human suffering ‘from below’ became foundational for a radical (i.e., to the root) tracing of the implications of unrestricted/critical inquiry (also a component of ‘from below’ thinking) and for a radical (i.e., to the root) critique of ‘God’ language.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #69

[January 2000 journal entry]

I am convinced that all the writings in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture – except the Ecclesiastes essay and the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job – reflect variations on the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #68

[December 1999 journal entry]

Yesterday a semi-trailer truck on I-65 southbound changed lanes, nicked a car in the left lane, lost control, crossed the median, grazed two vehicles in the northbound I-65 traffic before crashing head-on into a van. Three children, their parents, and the two children whose parents were driving a trailing van were killed in the crash/fire. A 19-year-old boy heading for his grandparents’ home was driving the car the truck nicked before crossing the median. He was not harmed. By the time a news team arrived on the scene, the boy’s grandparents had been notified and had come to the scene. Within sight of the horrible and deadly crash, the grandmother said on camera over and over – “Praise the Lord, thank the Lord, . . .” in reference to her grandson’s escaping injury. I find such ‘God’ language utterly offensive and abhorrent.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #67

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: That no writing in Christian scripture is comparable to the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay re being oriented by a ‘from below’ concentration on and alignment with harsh human realities. I think the Gospel of Luke comes the closest, though the intent of the Gospel of Luke is different from the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #66

[December 1999 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm, to say “life is not fair” is to say implicitly “God is not fair”. In the story/play Job, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three closest friends see this link in his statements and attack his integrity. I do not understand how individuals within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm trying to be observant miss, dismiss, or object to this implication of saying “life is not fair”.