A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #110

[May 2000 journal entry

It seems to me that, if Bonhoeffer prior to 1939 considered his theology during his Confessing Church years to have been essentially true, then he would have been pressured either (1) to stay in the United States in 1939 where he could have maintained such theology or (2) to turn away from resisting the Nazis upon his return to Germany (i.e., taking ‘the inner line’ which, in the smuggled prison letters, he criticized the Confessing Church for adopting). Was Bonhoeffer, therefore, questioning the validity and credibility of his pre-1939 theology by criteria separate from whether or not the Confessing Church could/would put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? Or did he assess the credibility and validity of theological ideas/views (including his own) by the criterion of the Confessing Church’s ability to put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? I think that, in reference to my following a ‘non-religious’ path, the answer is ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’. In other words, the ‘religious’ thought world did not for me prove to be intellectually/academically credible. Additionally and centrally, the ‘religion’ failed/died for me due to its incapacity to respect and to be truly present with the victims of tragic/innocent human suffering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #109

[May 2000 journal entry]

Note: If Bonhoeffer had survived the war, no one would have yet read any of Bonhoeffer’s smuggled prison letters -- other than the Bethges -- thus making it conceivable he would have attempted to suppress/disregard/forget the radical ideas he had expressed in the smuggled prison letters.

Note: For both Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job, they would have faced many re-entry opportunities into societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere). Some of these opportunities would have been pressed on them, whether or not they would have been drawn to them (analogous to Augustine of Hippo being pressed into the priesthood). Other of these opportunities would have been attractive to them.

Note: Bonhoeffer would have been misunderstood, pressured, and/or inwardly drawn back onto the ‘religious’ path (and, therefore, away/back from a ‘non-religious’ path). Note: Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in 1939 in order to be in a position to participate in the postwar reconstruction. To what degree (if to any significant degree) had he begun to consider the radical/seminal ideas expressed in his smuggled prison letters at the time he returned in 1939?

Note: How might Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job have sustained a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience? How much of the initial/extremity experience needs to be sustained? What are the dynamics that need to be retained?

Note: With whom would Bonhoeffer or the ‘scrapheap’ Job have been able to talk re this experience/task and the related ideas? Eberhard mentioned several times in our conversations his struggle after the war with how to respond to the radical ‘non-religious’ ideas in the smuggled letters he received from Dietrich.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #108

[May 2000 journal entry]

The ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experienced by Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job contributed directly to their seminal ideas. I have long pondered

1. whether Bonhoeffer would have remained/continued on the ‘non-religious’ path he was beginning to see/describe in his smuggled prison letters to Eberhard Bethge and
2. whether the ‘scrapheap’ Job should be interpreted as sustaining the radical insights/perspective he expresses in the exchanges with his three close friends.

A ‘yes’ answer to these questions would imply that they would have intentionally (had) to retain a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience (for Bonhoeffer, after prison; for the ‘scrapheap’ Job, after relief from his physical afflictions). I have attempted to retain a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience since my first wife’s death (e.g., taking advantage of isolation times, staying near individuals in desperate situations, taking actions that are consistent with being ‘with the world face to face’, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #107

[May 2000 journal entry]

Who has remained on a ‘non-religious’ path re ethics and spirituality? Should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be envisioned to have done so? Would Bonhoeffer have done so had he survived the war? How/where would there be a record of the experience? As far as I know, a ‘non-religious’ path has not been worn down into an established and well-marked ‘way’. I have concluded that very few have looked or are looking for such a path.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #106

[April 2000 journal entry]

There seems to be a ‘saint’ status assigned to Bonhoeffer across much of the Christian ‘religious’ sphere. The 1939-45 Bonhoeffer is either dismissed or minimized or in other ways not treated seriously (i.e., as central and radical) other than to get to his execution. His 1939-45 years are interpreted ‘religiously’. I view his 1939-45 years as the core/focus, accenting the disjunction with his pre-1939 ‘religious’ years. I think it remains unclear whether Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have followed through with the ‘non-religious’ path and ideas on which he reflected in the secret prison letters. In this same line of thought, I do not share the ‘saintly’ worship/adoration of ‘Jesus’ that formed during his life, increased after his death, and led to the ‘high Christology’ of ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm theologies.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #105

[April 2000 journal entry]

Analogies for my continuing to test ‘God’ language and to remove ‘religious’ nuances from my thinking in search of firm/healthy language/ideas are –

1. cleaning/cutting out a tumor as well as all surrounding diseased tissue,
   
2. drilling out all of a tooth’s decay before putting in a filling,
3. looking for healthy tissue from which to begin a hernia repair,
4. tearing out all rotten wood before repair/remodeling begins.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #104

[April 2000 journal entry]

All ‘religious’ language is metaphorical. One difference between ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ approaches to spirituality and ethics is that a ‘non-religious’ approach acts radically (i.e., to the root) on this realization.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #103

[May 2001 journal entry]

During a recent visit with Renate Bethge, she asked if I might have some ideas/suggestions re a presentation she has been invited to give to International Bonhoeffer Society members attending the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in Denver. She has been asked to speak about ‘Memories and Perspectives’. At various times during these days together, I offered and we discussed the following ideas/suggestions (listed in no particular order) --

1. How Dietrich is remembered is linked to the perspective/s of the one/s remembering.
   
   
2. Consider working off of Dietrich’s prison correspondence thoughts about memory and remembering. Discuss the indications in the prison letters (a) that Dietrich anticipated being remembered and (b) how he wanted to be remembered.
   
   
3. To be studied is not necessarily to be remembered in a way that calls for a verdict.
   
   
4. It is ironic that organizations such as the International Bonhoeffer Society and the American Academy of Religion make it difficult for the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer to be remembered in a radical, vibrant, and challenging way.
   
   
5. Drawing from Dietrich’s exchange in New York City with the young French pastor who aspired to become a saint (Dietrich’s 21 July 1944 letter to Eberhard), challenge the beatification or making into a saint/icon that has occurred in the ‘religious’ recollection/treatment of Dietrich.
   
   
6. Develop Dietrich’s ‘from below’ perspective (e.g., the paragraph attached to Dietrich’s December 1942 Ten Years Later essay).
   
   
7. Reconstruct how confusing and ambiguous Dietrich’s 1939-45 Abwehr conspiracy involvement was to those after the war who viewed him from a Confessing Church/Finkenwalde perspective.
   
   
8. Point to Dietrich’s sense of accountability to the next generation (e.g., the frequent references in his December 1942 Ten Years Later essay).
   
   
9. Critique various perspectives of Dietrich in light of Dietrich’s perceptions of himself as indicated in his ‘Who Am I?’ prison poem/prayer.
   
   
10. Note that how Dietrich has been remembered is somewhat analogous to the interpretations that developed around the life of ‘Jesus’ soon after his death.
    
    
11. Very soon no one will remain who knew Dietrich – his eyes, his manner, his scents, his tone, his habits, his touch, . . . .
    
    
12. Dietrich will be remembered. The question is – How will he be remembered?
    
    
13. Eberhard and Renate have invested their postwar lives to making it possible for Dietrich to be accessible to subsequent generations.
    
    
14. Consider beginning with personal memories before shifting to more prophetic reflections.
    
    
15. Eberhard knew Dietrich in ways unique to being the ‘friend in the singular’. What stands out in how Eberhard remembered Dietrich?
    
    
16. Were there detectible/significant transitions after the war in the ways Eberhard and Renate remembered Dietrich? in the ways immediate family members remembered Dietrich?
    
    
17. Should Dietrich be remembered as who he was or as who he was on the verge of becoming? according to familiar categories (i.e., pre-1939 categories) or according to unfamiliar categories (i.e., post-1939 categories)?
    
    
18. Perspectives by which Dietrich is remembered – e.g., religious, Jewish, immediate family, scholar, historian, Finkenwalde student, fellow conspirator, friend, Maria, fellow prisoner, Confessing Church colleague, . . . perspectives.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #102

[March 2000 journal entry]

With a statistical ‘standard deviation’ curve as a reference point, the individuals who are ready and motivated to pursue a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality correlate with 2+ standard deviations from the mean. These individuals are sifted out by such variables as

1. the resolve to think consistently,
2. multidisciplinary reading/perspective,
3. the decision to live and think ‘from below’,
4. the experience of a language/paradigm ‘meltdown’ early enough in life and thoroughly enough not to hesitate to respond radically and irreversibly,
5. the availability of sufficient time and energy.

Fragment -- #141

[May 2000 journal entry]

After 1987 my repositioning outside the Churches of Christ denomination and the larger ‘religious’ sphere became complete and final as I radically (i.e., to the root) reconstructed my thinking. My integrity as a person was and continues to be clarified/determined by where this ‘outside’ experience takes me.

Fragment -- #140

[May 2000 journal entry]

Thesis: That the human points of reference in ‘God’ language are more meaningful, significant, and experienced than are the metaphorical/morphic adaptations of those points of reference into ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #139

[May 2000 journal entry]

My intent is to approach life (given the uncertainties re health, longevity, . . .) in such a way that my centering goals/intentions are realized to a significant degree each day and can be so realized in the widest variety of circumstances in which I find myself.

Fragment -- #138

[May 2000 journal entry]

Note: ‘majority’ is not equivalent to ‘consensus’. Key differences include

1. how a group or society moves forward re the contested issue, and
2. the way those with deep objections to the contested issue are handled.
   

The Dutch handling of assisted dying from the late-1960s forward is an excellent study for distinguishing ‘majority’ and ‘consensus’.

Fragment -- #137

[May 2000 journal entry] I cannot regard statements that claim to be factual and interpretations of events recorded in Jewish scripture and/or Christian scripture as credible when I would not regard such statements and interpretations as credible if they were expressed or proposed by someone today.

Fragment -- #136

[May 2000 journal entry]

Is my attempt to salvage/retain the term ‘spiritual’ linked to my being born/raised in the ‘religious’ sphere? Is the term ‘spiritual’ laden with too much baggage to be effective/useful for those not raised/experienced in/with ‘religion’? Is it too much to ask/expect secular individuals to add/use a term that may appear to them to be a ‘religious’ term? Is this analogous to asking/expecting them to move near the edge of the ‘religious’ black hole?

Fragment -- #135

[May 2000 journal entry]

I am realizing there can be no ‘God’ language that is safe from idolatry. ‘God’ language seems inevitably to fall back into idolatrous use. The alternative – finally – is silence.

Fragment -- #134

[April 2000 journal entry]

‘Liberal’ representations of the Christian ‘religious’ sphere stop short of radically (i.e., to the root) addressing and challenging the flawed core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #133

[April 2000 journal entry]

Re ‘God’ language – I think we are by analogy in the “there’s no Santa” phase without the ability to construct an ‘adult’ alternative language. Virtually all individuals I know sound like ‘Santa Claus’ believers when they use of ‘God’ language. Why are they?

1. Perhaps they lack the ability and education required to think critically through the ‘God’ language questions.
   
   
2. Perhaps the tragic human suffering they have experienced and/or have been pressed to take seriously is limited.
   
   
3. Perhaps they place more value on acquiring/holding a place in one or more of societal spheres (which do not encourage, much less build upon, critical inquiry).

If ‘God’ language is used in ways analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language (which I think is the case), what are the ‘Santa believers’ claiming to be experiencing re ‘God’?

Fragment -- #132

[March 2000 journal entry]

Every person’s views/decisions are relative and situational – i.e., (1) relative at least in the sense that every person’s views derive from some perspective or angle on the subject and (2) situational at least in the sense that every person’s previous experiences influence the manner and degree to which present situations are engaged. Therefore, the question is not whether views/decisions are relative/situational, but from what perspective/angle and set of experiences do one’s views/decisions derive.

If one’s perspective/angle for forming views/decisions is essentially ideological, then individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real will inevitably be viewed/treated within the parameters of the observer’s ideology and will be forced to confirm the credibility of that ideology. The observer’s views/decisions will often and easily be expressed as obvious, clear, and categorical . . . at the expense of objectifying or disrespecting individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real.

Treating as most basic (i.e., cornerstone or anchoring) the responsibility/art/practice of being truly present with individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real creates an alternative perspective/angle from which views/decisions derive. The observer’s views/decisions from this perspective/angle will rarely be obvious, clear, or categorical and individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real will not be objectified or disrespected by the observer.

Fragment -- #131

[March 2000 journal entry]

Reflections on ‘faith’ and ‘doubt’ after hearing a sermon based on the Mark 9:14-29 text by the senior pastor for a Presbyterian USA congregation --

1. ‘Religious’ options move across a spectrum – from ‘faith’ vs. ‘doubt’ with no place for critical thinking to inquiry permitted/expected in order to confirm predetermined and unconditionally accepted views to inquiry permitted to test/cleanse pre-established views.
   
   
2. For the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering, ‘doubt’ centers and shapes what I trust.
   
   
3. I do not accept the Mark 9:14-29 story’s ‘religious’ way and am not seeking help in overcoming ‘unbelief’ in this ‘religious’ or T/O paradigm sense.

Fragment -- #130

[February 2000 journal entry]

“No one is innocent” – the polite but emphatic response of a physician to a colleague who had shared his views about tragedy, innocent suffering, and “the silence of God”. I think the theology implicit in the statement “No one is innocent”, when examined vigorously and critically, implicates ‘God’ and must be challenged if human suffering is to be considered innocent. Anchored by a literal view of ‘original sin’, the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (1) makes human suffering a consequence and punishment for ‘the fall’ and (2) requires a pre-modern/pre-scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I think everyone has to contend with forces that pull strongly away from a commitment to contribute to and advocate for the relief/recovery from physical, mental, and socio-economic suffering.

Fragment -- #129

[February 2000 journal entry]

‘Freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) makes my short list of great ideas and highest values, meaning that ‘freedom’ has been/is central to my intellectual efforts and that to diminish my ‘freedom’ is to diminish my ‘self’ (and, therefore, my integrity or identity).

The establishment/protection of ‘freedom’ in a society such as the United States is analogous to the concentration in medical school and residency training on the mastery of the core scientific/medical knowledge base and the technical skills prerequisite for practicing medicine. These tasks have to be treated – at least temporarily – more as ‘ends’ than as ‘means’. However, as special knowledge and technical skills do not equal being ‘professional’ or result in ‘the art of medicine’, neither does the establishment/protection of ‘freedom’ necessarily result in a ‘well-lived life’.

I would propose (1) that the Christendom era (@600-1600 AD) had no foundational or weight-bearing place for ‘freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) and (2) that, in the modern era to date, the establishment of ‘freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) still remains more an ‘end’ to be achieved than a ‘means’ by which to achieve other ends. Reaching back for and attempting to recreate medieval Christendom are neither realistic nor appealing aspirations. Instead, using the above analogy of medical education/training, I see the modern era at present as analogous to recently graduated residents who face the realization that they are not yet ‘professionals’ or able to practice in a seasoned way the ‘art of medicine’. The context in which they mature is often not particularly helpful/encouraging. Nor is the present context in the United States very supportive for maturing from treating ‘freedom’ as an ‘end’ to treating ‘freedom’ as a ‘means’.

Fragment -- #128

[February 2000 journal entry]

I recently listened to a group of physicians discuss the concept ‘grace’ in a way that associated experiencing grace with the confession of spiritual weakness. The discussion led me to realize more clearly I have come to think --

1. of grace as an invitation/opportunity to step into (even seek out) new, unfamiliar, intimidating, challenging, threatening circumstances and experiences without fearing the inevitable stumbling, falling, trembling, . . . ;
   
   
2. ‘the gospel of Jesus’ has essentially to do with daring to live as he embodies and teaches (i.e., being profoundly radical or ‘to the root’) and, therefore, entering new, unfamiliar, intimidating, challenging, threatening circumstances and experiences;
   
   
3. those who overcome their fear of failing by remaining safely within the familiar ironically remain far removed from the ‘presence of God’ – a consequence that seems to me to be inseparable from interpretations that link experiencing grace to the confession of spiritual weakness and that make childlike dependence the spiritual ideal and a prerequisite for experiencing grace.

Fragment -- #127

[February 2000 journal entry]

Though in certain ways I was a ‘child of the 60s’ re resistance to established institutions (as much as was possible in the rural western Kentucky small town in which I was raised), my aim/goal eventually became centered on being truly present with individuals with whom it is very difficult and existentially dangerous to be truly present. Initially, this resolve took a very personal and concrete form – i.e., being truly present with my first wife (d. 1987) in her struggle with multiple sclerosis. However, in time she and that experience brought light/attention for me on the breadth/depth of human suffering. I have never recovered (in the sense of being peaceful) from this realization. It is from this perspective/angle that the ideas and propositions I have to offer have been and continue to be crafted/tested. One consequence/cost has been that I have become an ‘outsider’ to societal spheres, being left with ‘guest’ rather than ‘member’ privileges. This consequence/cost leaves me wondering if these ideas and propositions have circulation potential inside societal spheres or only for other ‘outsiders’. I think the answer may be a selective ‘yes’ re inside circulation. But I do not take this for granted, nor do I assume such communication is simple.