Fragment -- #198

[January 2002 journal entry]

When I first saw the Francis of Assisi film Brother Sun, Sister Moon, I could empathize with Francis’ inability – short of violating his integrity – to satisfy his father’s deathbed entreaties to leave his witness to a radically simplified life and return to his father’s business/fortune. When I first read the agonizing letters Adolph Harnack exchanged with his father – a respected 19^th-century conservative theologian/churchman – re Adolph’s critical historical interpretations and his liberal theological proposals, I could empathize with his/their pain.

Fragment -- #197

[January 2002 journal entry]

I value and enjoy four types of music – i.e., classical (esp., Shostakovich, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky), 60s (esp., Chicago, Blood Sweat and Tears, The Beatles, Three Dog Night, Mammas and Pappas), jazz (esp., Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson, Marian McPartland, Diane Schuur), blues (esp., B. B. King, Aretha Franklin, Albert King, Billie Holliday, Eric Clapton, Keb Mo’, Norah Jones). (If I were to pick a ‘religious’ musician, it would be Rich Mullins.) Each genre has deep links with my ‘non-religious’ experience/views – e.g., classical puts me in awe of the artistic potential of the human geist and symbolizes hope for order/symmetry to triumph over chaos, 60s provides a wide-open forum from a revolutionizing decade, jazz illustrates the attempt to integrate individuality and community, blues breaks through from beneath the societal glitter.

Fragment -- #196

[January 2002 journal entry]

The lives of the five most seminal/pivotal thinkers/examples for my ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality – i.e., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Albert Camus, Martin Buber, Nicholai Berdyaev, Michel Quoist – all crossed the Nazi years.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #52

Propositions:

‘Jesus’ was deeply spiritual (i.e., a centered and thoughtful life).

‘Jesus’ was not very religious (in the organized/institutional sense).

‘Jesus’ was radically ethical (e.g., a Sermon on the Mount ethic).

‘Jesus’ was not very righteous (in the self-conscious, tradition-driven, or ‘religious’ sense).

‘Jesus’ was very reflective (e.g., his ‘God’ language, his trust in sound judgment).

‘Jesus’ was not very dogmatic (in the ‘religious’ sense).

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #51

[August 2002 journal entry]

Was ‘Jesus’ envisioning/anticipating ‘Christianity’ (as institutionalized from the time of the apostle Paul forward in increasingly non-Jewish forms?) No, in my judgment.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #50

[March 2002 journal entry]

The nearer I draw to ‘Jesus’ (i.e., historie), the further I find myself removed from ‘high’/‘from above’ Christologies. Two resolves have contributed most substantially to my position/angle re ‘Jesus’ and orthodox Christologies – i.e., (1) to sustain a radically critical historiography and (2) to pursue the implications of having Shelly Korones and subsequently a number of other Jewish physicians among my core spiritual relationships.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #49

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The disjunction between ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ views of ‘Jesus’ was most pronounced in the Apostle Paul among the first generation of Christianity’s leaders. He claimed/referenced no personal experience (i.e., historie) with ‘Jesus’. He sidestepped this liability as he aggressively promoted his ‘from above’ theology, thus freeing him from historical restraints and freeing him to engage the dualistic cosmologies widespread in the Greco-Roman world. Paul saw no need for ‘from below’ historie, especially since he was convinced the end of historie was imminent. This gamble is analogous to the short life of a cut flower. To look ‘from below’, to invest in historie, was for Paul to revert to ‘the flesh’, to the past, to the ‘old’, to the ‘dead’. Paul’s extant writings leave no suggestion he would have encouraged a historie investigation of ‘Jesus’. Peter, James, et al could not go ‘toe to toe’ with Paul. His education, his travel, his ease with Greek and Roman culture, his evangelistic successes (and probably his energy!) would have overwhelmed them. The Synoptic Gospels are themselves ‘from above’ interpretations of ‘Jesus’ in that they center on the crucifixion and resurrection narratives. However, they are not similar to Paul’s dismissal of ‘Jesus’ in favor of the ‘Christ Jesus’ he considered sufficiently/profoundly experienced as present in the churches he was founding. Perhaps the Synoptic Gospels were written in part to ensure that the ‘Jesus’ who lived would not be forgotten, just in case time did not end as soon as Paul was confident it would.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #48

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: I find no compelling reason to think that the first leaders of Christianity understood ‘Jesus’ any more clearly after his death than during his life (the Synoptic Gospels indicating they understood very little during his life), their self-certifying claims – e.g., appeals to miraculous confirmations and to immediate revelations from ‘God’ -- after the death of ‘Jesus’ notwithstanding. They lacked an approach to ‘Jesus’ that would call for radically critiquing their various institutionalizing tendencies. Reconstructions and interpretations of the life and thought of ‘Jesus’ by representatives/guardians of Christianity then or now were/are bound by and serve/d the interests of Christianity as a ‘religion’. The reconstructions and interpretations tone/d down and sift/ed out the radical (i.e., to the root) edges of ‘Jesus’.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #47

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity were not centered on ‘the gospel of Jesus’ or anchored in historie, but ironically created and worked off of new versions of the fundamental characteristics of the ‘religion’ opposed by ‘Jesus’ (e.g., hierarchical organization, infighting, otherworldliness, inequities, marginalizing of women, . . .). How would ‘Jesus’ have reacted to a reading of each writing in what became the Christian canon of scripture (including the Synoptic Gospels, but especially Acts through Revelation)? How would he have reacted to the ‘religious’ institutionalizing done in his name? Would he conclude, “They got it!”

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #46

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity retained interest in the historical ‘Jesus’ as the backdrop to the ‘from above’ (or ‘looking back’) angle created by the resurrection narratives and by the subsequent immediately present guidance from ‘God’ they claimed. To use Karl Barth’s categories, geschichte replaced historie. ‘From below’ perspectives were quickly left without representation in what eventually became the official record of the first years after the death of ‘Jesus’. Variations – historical as well as theological -- within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to be approved, had to build off this ‘from above’ methodology. My ‘non-religious’ approach (1) gives priority to historie over geschichte claims and interpretations, (2) considers historie as building material, (3) has reservations about geschichte claims/interpretations both as credible language and as a credible methodological starting point.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #45

[February 2002 journal entry]

It is striking to me that ‘Jesus’ (i.e., the actual person who, if accessible to historical reconstruction, is known almost exclusively through the Synoptic Gospels with minimal contribution from the Gospel of John and a few sources outside the Christian canon of scripture) is virtually absent in the other early writings (Acts through Revelation) that became canonical for Christianity. There are, of course, allusions. But there is no biographical information (other than references to his death), no episodes from his life (other than Paul’s reference to ‘the last supper’), none of his teachings (other than the one quotation in Acts that is not paralleled in any of the four Gospels), no use of his parables (or the story-telling method, for that matter), . . . . No reconstruction of the life of ‘Jesus’ is possible from these writings.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #44

[January 2002 journal entry]

The more critically informed/shaped one’s view of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, the more diminished the finality and authority of the theologies advocated within those writings. At some point across the Christology spectrum from ‘high’ to ‘low’, a threshold is crossed/passed beyond which the lack of finality and authority re the methodology, theology, cosmology of ‘Jesus’ must be admitted and incorporated into one’s approach to ethics and spirituality.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #43

[October 2001 journal entry]

I cannot read the four Gospels or Acts any more literally than I can so read Genesis 1-11.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #42

[September 2001 journal entry]

The lower my ‘Christology’, the more ‘Jesus’ becomes typical of his time re worldview and, thus, subject to criticism from a ‘non-religious’ perspective.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #41

[April 2001 journal entry]

I am very far removed from understanding the ‘give us this day our daily bread’ prayer to imply there is no need to bake the pita, trusting that the baking will occur due to direct and intentional divine intervention. First, the pita simply will not be baked without a baker getting the work done. Second, most ‘God’ language offered as commentary on ‘give us this day our daily bread’ ignores, goes around, is unaware of the anthropomorphic and sociomorphic meaning/limitations of such ‘God’ language.

Where is ‘Jesus’ (as represented in each of the four Gospels and, to the degree possible, as distinguished from these representations)? I want to say that ‘Jesus’ would have much to teach us re understanding the anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic meaning/limitations ‘God’ language. However, I realize that seeing ‘Jesus’ in this way cuts against the grain of the way ‘God’ language is used in Jewish scripture/thought, in Christian scripture/thought, and in today’s ‘religious’ sphere. And viewing ‘Jesus’ as essentially human diminishes the likelihood that he sensed/valued this language limitation.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #40

[January 2001 journal entry]

I have recently been thinking about ‘Jesus’ as leaven, the point being that ‘Jesus’ -- and not just his followers/students -- disappears and is indistinguishable in the way leaven disappears and is indistinguishable in baked dough. ‘Religion’ emphatically opposes this proposition.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #39

[January 2001 journal entry]

‘Jesus’ becomes less and less orthodox as I imagine writing him into the story/play Job as the missing character in the story/play – i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming further or disrespecting him.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #38

[December 2000 journal entry]

In a conversation with the senior pastor for Nashville’s 2^nd Presbyterian Church (USA) re my views of ‘Jesus’, he observed, “Your approach to Jesus gets to the essence. I agree that so much about the ‘religious’ Jesus – heaven, hell, deity, resurrection, . . . – is extraneous to the Jesus who lived 2000 years ago.” He then asked, “Why did you get it when so few do?” Prefaced with an admission that in the final analysis I do not know, I mentioned the following – (1) studying history, (2) being exposed, through my first wife’s illness, to human frailty and old-age conditions as a young adult, (3) the inner drive for thorough analysis and for consistency, (4) . . . .

I am convinced one must either move more deeply into or move out of the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm. Most professional guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have too much invested in the ‘religious’ sphere to do other than draw individuals inward.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #86

[March 2003 journal entry]

In a recent conversation, a burdened friend observed --

How can behaviors and consequences be attributed to ‘the will of God’ when, if a human being were responsible for such, we would call it crime or mental illness. What kind of person would I be if I could do something to prevent such suffering for an individual and did not do so? And yet the ‘God’ talk in churches proceeds to honor ‘God’!

I expressed agreement with his analysis/concern and shared with him at least four decisions I have made in dealing with such conflict – (1) I am resolved to orient my life toward such suffering and toward alignment with such sufferers, (2) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that claim to make sense of or to justify such suffering, (3) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that marginalize or distract from such suffering/ers, (4) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that encourage such sufferers to suppress their raw/honest reactions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #85

[February 2003 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with a Roman Catholic lay pastor/friend re the common ground shared by ‘sacramental’ (e.g., a Rahner or a Teilhard de Chardin) and ‘immanentist’ (e.g., a Schleiermacher) approaches to spirituality and ethics with which he expressed affinity, I suggested that the anchor/context should be the raw realities of human suffering. I proposed that such proximity and focus result in the discrediting of ‘religious’ T/O paradigm nuances re ‘God’. I also proposed that ‘sacramental’ and ‘immanentist’ approaches to spirituality and ethics face two risks/pressures – (1) to drift away from and, therefore, weaken the force of the raw realities of human suffering in order to retain a hopeful vision/message and (2) to redefine/nuance the term ‘God’ in ways that may appear to leave ‘God’ (language) irrelevant to those existentially engaged (by lot or by choice) in the raw realities of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #84

[February 2002 journal entry]

The prologue and epilogue to the story/play Job are ‘from above’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job, in his exchanges with his three close friends, speaks increasingly ‘from below’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #83

[February 2002 journal entry]

Re the story/play Job -- note the words/phrases in the prologue that are reversed, often in startling and dramatic ways, in the exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends – e.g., ‘God’, blessed, hedges, storm, integrity, servant, evil, fool/ish, accuser, friend, trouble, . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #82

[October 2001 journal entry]

The ‘re-entry’ question/angle to the story/play Job and to Bonhoeffer’s narrative had he survived the war as well as to my narrative after my first wife’s disease/death might be described with a phrase from the recent film The Legend of Bagger Vance – “coming out of the shadows”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #81

[September 2001 journal entry]

I recently learned about a pastoral psychologist who is a faculty member at an evangelical college and also a staff member for a very theologically conservative Presbyterian church. I was told by a mutual acquaintance (1) that he has taken the position of valuing/retaining a place within this ‘community of faith’ even if he has to remain silent re numerous theological issues, (2) that he knows that no one is rewarded to think critically at his college or in his church, (3) that he puts issues such as tragic human suffering in what he calls a ‘mystery box’, (4) that he accepts that most individuals want a protective perimeter around their ‘religious’ beliefs, (5) that he would have a lot at stake if he challenged either the college or the church. What kind of friend could/would he be to a ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #80

[July 2001 journal entry]

The 16 July 2001 issue of Time included an article entitled ‘When God Hides His Face’. The subtitle – ‘Can faith survive when hope has died? The Guthries think so.’ The Guthries live near where we live in Franklin, are active members of Presbyterian PCA church, and are employed in businesses that commercialize Christian ‘religion’ (Mrs. Guthrie being a publicist for Christian literature authors). The Time article focused on the Guthries’ response and their church’s response to their having two successive pregnancies (the first died after eighteen months, the second conceived a few months after the death and not yet born at the time of publication) with the infants afflicted with Zellweger syndrome (a syndrome that spreads destructive/deadly entities called peroxisomes in every cell).

The article’s author makes an observation that -- “Along with everything else, Job’s friends eventually turn on him. By contrast, the group of fellow believers with whom the Guthries have met every Sunday night for seven years has been an unfailing pillar of strength. . . .” The article’s author seems to miss the obvious – i.e., the group has not failed the Guthries because the Guthries have not challenged the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as did the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

Though Mr. Guthrie comes across as a bit more cautious than Mrs. Guthrie, their responses and those within the Sunday night group unequivocally affirm confidence (1) that ‘God’ is all powerful and in complete control of all life events and (2) that ‘God’ is just and purposeful in controlling all life events. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm could hardly be more completely presented. One of the Sunday night group members is quoted as saying, “At a time like this, you either believe or not. The group finally concluded that we will go down with the ship, believing in our hearts that God is in control.” The article’s closing includes this very revealing exchange –

(Mr. Guthrie) Without a couple of bedrock assumptions, none of this makes sense to anybody. You take them away and, boy, it is . . .

(Mrs. Guthrie) . . . bitter.

(Mr. Guthrie) It’s all bad.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #79

[May 2001 journal entry]

The “Who are you to challenge me?” condescension/bullying the ‘scrapheap’ Job faces from ‘God’ in the whirlwind section of the story/play constitutes a critical decision point for audiences/readers. (Bethge, in his essay in the 1968 Bonhoeffer in a World Come of Age, says Bonhoeffer wrestled with this issue.) If audiences/readers accept that Job is out of line with his ‘scrapheap’ questions/conclusions, then they will answer “No one” – characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere – to the question “If not Job, then who?” It took me several years to realize that ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm would accept no other answer. A ‘non-religious’ path leads me to object strongly to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s being bullied and intimidated by ‘God’ in the whirlwind section of the story/play.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #78

[February 2001 journal entry] I am now going through Proverbs from a ‘scrapheap’ perspective as part of my analysis of the epilogue to the story/play Job – e.g., the difficult attempt to return from the ‘scrapheap’ to be a voice for those who are shunned by and cannot speak for themselves inside societal spheres.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #153

[December 2001 journal entry]

A young pastor recently asked how I had come to my ‘non-religious’ approach to and understanding of ‘community’. I drew on a napkin a circle representing ‘community of faith’, encompassing the full/diverse denominational spectrum. I then drew a line from the center outward beyond the circle’s edge, representing where the voiceless and marginalized are found. I explained it was during the first of my years as a graduate professor that being present with my first wife as multiple sclerosis pulled her into humiliating deterioration undermined the existential credibility of the ‘religious’ sphere simultaneous with my coming to the conclusion that the ‘religious’ sphere also lacked intellectual credibility (e.g., lack of place for radical thinking, for critical historiography, for facing the limitations of ‘God’ language). At various points along that line stretching out beyond the circle’s edge to where being with my first wife took me, I marked where various acquaintances (e.g., family, friends, colleagues), schools of thought (both philosophical and theological), writings in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, seminal thinkers in the history of religious thought, and Christian denominations lost credibility for me. Very few in any of these categories retained credibility for me amid the voiceless and marginalized victims of neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. I explained that I discovered a sense of ‘community’ by straining to be near the voiceless and marginalized and with the individuals (for me, mostly health care professionals) who had chosen to be with and serve them. From this discovery evolved my four-tiered understanding of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #152

[December 2001 journal entry]

‘Non-religious’ thinking pursues questions/ideas to the end. ‘Religious’ thinking does not.

Fragment -- #195

[December 2001 journal entry]

When in conversation with someone who claims to be an atheist, I begin with the assumption that the person means that s/he does not find credible certain ways the term ‘God’ is used or nuanced (often with the confession that I share his/her reaction to such ‘God’ language). I then suggest that the term ‘God’ is best considered via a spectrum with one end equating ‘God’ language and ‘Santa’ language (in my opinion, not credible ‘God’ language) and the opposite end representing silence re ‘God’ language. I propose that to claim with certainty there is no reality transcending the human geist is to claim an exhaustive comprehension of all reality (a claim human wisdom cannot accomplish).

Fragment -- #194

[December 2001 journal entry]

Why study history? --

1. to acquire important mental habits,
   
2. to promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts,
   
3. to promote respect and, therefore, ‘community’,
   
4. to learn indirectly by considering the experience of others,
   
5. to address causes rather than symptoms,
   
6. to promote humility,
7. to avoid the repetition of errors and tragedies in the past.