A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #141

[May 2001 journal entry]

My resolve to move toward/among and remain unwaveringly with my ‘circle of conspirators’ (i.e., the twenty or so physicians with whom I have worked most closely over the past two decades in promoting a humane and socially responsible practice of medicine) was fixed by 1992 (or perhaps as early as 1989). Is there indication in his prison correspondence that Bonhoeffer had adopted such a resolution? Or was his involvement/partnership with the Abwehr conspirators a departure in extreme circumstances from his ‘religious’ alignments before the war or from the ‘religious’ alignments he would have established had he survived the war?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #140

[May 2001 journal entry]

As ‘religion’ and the T/O paradigm failed/collapsed/died for me, my understanding of ‘Jesus’ came under both historical/intellectual and existential review. My ‘religious’ views/interpretations of ‘Jesus’ failed/collapsed/died. Is there evidence Bonhoeffer’s pursuit of the implications of a ‘non-religious’ interpretation was leading him thoroughly into a similar review? I think the prison correspondence indicates he had begun, but much had yet to be addressed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #139

[May 2001 journal entry]

Bonhoeffer correctly (in my judgment) realized (e.g., 30 April 1944 letter to Bethge) that any ‘religious a priori’ had to be set aside. For me, ‘religion’ here has the nuances Bonhoeffer addressed in his prison letters as well as the nuances I address throughout my journal entries since 1992. The ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering builds instead on an ‘ontological a priori’. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm begins any consideration of ontology (i.e., the nature/essence of being) ‘from above’. For me, the ‘ontological a priori’ begins ‘from below’ with the exercise of observation/reflection and with indiscriminate attention given to the full range of human experience (i.e., from the beautiful to the tragic).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #138

[April 2001 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ approach necessitates that the language cluster surrounding ‘monarch’ and ‘lord’ be critiqued and, if necessary, set aside – e.g., ‘kneel’, ‘worship’, ‘rule’, ‘up there’, ‘power’, ‘obey’, ‘control’, ‘bow down’, ‘praise’, ‘worthy’, ‘not questioning’, ‘court’, ‘will’, ‘king’, ‘royal’, ‘crown’, ‘sword’, ‘kingdom’, ‘judge’, ‘throne’, ‘sovereign’, ‘command’, ‘banner’, . . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #137

[April 2001 journal entry]

Re the ‘God’ language common to the ‘religious’ sphere – my experience is analogous to knowing there is no ‘Santa’ when virtually everyone around me thinks there is, a situation that leaves me feeling I may have little to say to them. I realize there are risks in this position. My formation – existential and methodological – has led me further and further from the ‘religious’ norm/mean re ‘God’ language.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #136

[April 2001 journal entry]

I have been reflecting again on thinking scientifically, especially on Karl Popper’s argument that the falsifiability of a thesis is more basic than the verifiability of a thesis (see Popper’s 1963 Conjectures and Refutations essays). For many years, I have been vigorously testing the falsifiability primarily of my ideas and secondarily of other’s ideas. I think this process must be foundational to a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethic and spirituality. I have found no sustained demonstration of falsifiability efforts in the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #135

[April 2001 journal entry]

The term ‘worship’ is a holdover ‘religious’ concept that must be radically critiqued (and, if necessary, discarded) in order to remain on a ‘non-religious’ path re ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #134

[April 2001 journal entry]

Re a ‘from below’ approach – how many can? should? must? will? do?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #133

[April 2001 journal entry]

I see four distinguishable points along a hermeneutic spectrum. (1) At one end of the spectrum are variations on the fundamentalist/evangelical (‘the Bible says/teaches’) method. This method is incompatible – in method and views/ideas -- with contemporary understandings of science, history, political theory, . . . . (2) At the opposite end of the spectrum are variations on the collapse of efforts to interpret phenomena due to a loss of confidence in the liberty of the human mind/spirit. (3) Back from the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the spectrum are liberalized variations on the ‘religious’ paradigm by which views/ideas that cannot be maintained as credible are trimmed away without altering/abandoning the basic disposition or language of ‘the Bible says/teaches’ method. (4) Back from the dispirited end of the spectrum is where a ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ approach to ethics and spirituality has taken me. A ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ method and perspective (e.g., unfiltered observation, the severe realities of human suffering, natural explanations for phenomena, . . . ) govern the interpretation of Jewish scripture, Christian scripture, and any other source. No source has final authority or shuts down the interpretation task.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #132

[March 2001 journal entry]

I vigorously/relentlessly examine the foundation of my thought. Many seem to neglect the foundation of their thought, analogous to renters or negligent house owners. The first house we considered buying in Vermont was a beautiful Swiss chalet style house. We quickly/easily envisioned ourselves settling into each room. However, when I crawled under the house, I found on one side of the house’s foundation a crack running through the foundation blocks and I found on the opposite side of the house’s foundation the upper half of the foundation blocks off-set three inches from the lower half of the foundation blocks. We did not buy the house due to the damaged and faulty foundation. By analogy -- while lively theological conversations (from fundamentalist across the theological spectrum to liberal) go on in the fireplace room, in the library, in the kitchen, in the bedrooms, on the balcony, . . . of the ‘religious’ house, underneath I find an unreliable foundation. I do not think very many crawl under the ‘religious’ house or, if they do, I do not think they stay long enough to be irreversibly affected by what is found/seen.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #131

[January 2001 journal entry]

Proposition: That the ‘come of age’ break from being ‘religious’ to being ‘non-religious’ re ethics and spirituality entails/requires being disillusioned. The Latin root for ‘disillusioned’ is in + ludere and means to mock at, to play, to trick. The prefix ‘dis’ means to break in two, to tear apart, to do the opposite of, to deprive of, to exclude, to expel. ‘Disillusioned’ is thus linked to ‘ludicrous’, ‘deluded’, . . . . Being under an illusion is to be intellectually deceived or misled, to see a misleading image, to perceive something so as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature. Therefore, to become ‘non-religious’ is to be ‘dis-illusioned’.

Most think being ‘disillusioned’ is an experience to be avoided, overcome, defeated, . . . . Instead of disillusionment being an experience to defeat or from which to be rescued, being disillusioned is essential/critical to the search for a ‘non-religious’/‘come of age’ experience of and approach to ethics and spirituality. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job attempts to return to who/where he was prior to wasting away on the ‘scrapheap’ (as suggested in the story/play’s epilogue), he must achieve what surely is impossible if he is to find peace and maintain his integrity – i.e., he must re-illusion himself.

Fragment -- #173

[May 2001 journal entry]

To get to Philadelphia – where I gave two presentations for the Jefferson College of Medicine Obstetrics and Gynecology Department – in the least expensive way, I flew to Baltimore and then took an Amtrak train to Philadelphia. I retraced this route to return home. As the trains passed through Baltimore, Philadelphia, and smaller cities in between, I was struck by the miles and miles of desperate/dilapidated living conditions that are visible from the train but hidden by the street-front facades.

Fragment -- #172

[March 2001 journal entry]

“Who am I? Am I my resume?” (from A Chorus Line)

Fragment -- #171

[March 2001 journal entry]

In another of my twice-monthly 6:00 AM meetings with a young family physician in Nashville I first met in his third year of medical school, I had the following thoughts as we discussed what I proposed to be a deep tension experienced by physicians who express loyalty to a theological perspective that finds divine will in the essence of every human experience/event – e.g.,

1. note the implications for such ‘God’ language in comments in the medical sphere about ‘correcting’ or ‘fixing’ or ‘intervening’ or . . . an illness/injury,
   
2. note that this theological perspective builds on the pre-modern/Augustinian ‘perfection-fall-perfection’ theological paradigm,
   
3. note the theological implications for such ‘God’ language in an action such as the British beheading Charles II,
   
4. note the urgency to find new sources for spiritual nourishment once the deficiencies of this theological perspective are exposed.

Fragment -- #170

[March 2001 journal entry]

A close friend recently spoke with me about the ‘tug of war’ he said he feels between radically pursuing consistent/logical thought and the lure toward what is intellectually/existentially comfortable. I proposed that he cannot have it both ways. To radically pursue consistent/logical thought is to accept intellectual/existential discomfort as unavoidable, as a given. What are the consequences of making an exception to radically consistent/logical thought for a bit of intellectual/existential comfort? What would be the rationale for doing so?

Fragment -- #169

[March 2001 journal entry]

I went to a building in Athens where male refugees are fed a dinner each day. I squeezed into a packed elevator to get to the 7th floor dining room. It was difficult to open the elevator door as the foyer in front of the dining room door was already crowded.

Fragment -- #168

[March 2001 journal entry]

Sitting in an evangelical worship service with friends, I was reminded again that my ‘non-religious’ hermeneutic grid is always up/filtering. Note the pastor’s argument that appeals to human suffering represent a ‘smoke screen’ to avoid serious questions.

Fragment -- #167

[February 2001 journal entry]

By the early 1980s, I was out on an open sea. The water was deeper than the length of my anchors.

Fragment -- #166

[February 2001 journal entry]

For many years now, I have been making decisions on specific issues – cosmology, science, ethics, text criticism, politics, . . . – that imply core/root questions about using the ‘authority’ language (e.g., ‘lord’, ‘master’, ‘king’, . . .) common to Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. I have come to use such language less and less. The reality is that I do not make decisions based on sources considered authoritative when I cannot establish that authority. My approach to ethics and spirituality does not call for such. My way of being ‘with the world face to face’ would not collapse if ‘Jesus’ or any other reference point were completely discredited.

Fragment -- #165

[February 2001 journal entry]

By the time my first wife died (d. 1987) from complications associated with multiple sclerosis, I had learned to live/survive in the ‘wilderness’. After her death, I knew I would not return to a discriminating or artificial separation from the ‘wilderness’. Instead, I would remain as face to face as possible with the ‘world’. But I was not yet so familiar with the ‘marketplace’.

Fragment -- #164

[January 2001 journal entry]

After watching a Russian-produced 1960s version of War and Peace with my artist friend Dean, he noted that the Russian production’s treatment of battle scenes gets to the point where he wants to say, “Enough! Enough! I don’t want to see/know any more.” I began thinking about this reaction as a critical/radical threshold re awareness of the realities of human suffering. Some may react thus in an attempt not to cross the threshold beyond which lies radical rethinking/reordering of one’s life.

Fragment -- #163

January 2001 journal entry]

What accounts for my move so many standard deviations away from the mean in my approach to ethics and spirituality?

1. Doctoral studies in the field of history led to my adopting/forming a radically modern/critical historiography.
   
2. Existential experience with chronic illness and death (i.e., my first wife’s multiple sclerosis and death) during my 20s led to my resolving to align with the marginalized/outcast (i.e., a ‘from below’ perspective/journey).
   
3. Being born within and raised within a fundamentalist Christian denomination created firsthand knowledge of the ‘black hole’ inward pull of the ‘religious’ sphere.
4. Taking/finding opportunities to move outside the ‘religious’ sphere (personally and professionally) led to my thinking in the world’s ‘marketplaces’ and ‘wildernesses’ without the blinders/restrictions of the ‘religious’ sphere.
   
5. My resolve to strive for consistency in multiple diverse conversations required that I prioritize my place in those conversations.
   
6. Exposure to the breadth and depth of human suffering -- symbolized by my first wife’s experience with multiple sclerosis -- led to my crossing a threshold beyond which I could not forget, minimize, or compartmentalize such realities.
   

My sense is

1. that few individuals face such a combination of experiences,
   
2. that few individuals who face one or some combination of such experiences pursue the implications radically to the end, and
   
3. that facing simultaneously an increasing number of such experiences multiplies the force/resolve/initiative to follow out the implications radically to the end.