Fragment -- #235

[November 2003 journal entry]

‘Lord’ . . . ‘king/dom’ . . . ‘judge’ . . . ‘almighty’ . . . ‘inerrant’ . . . ‘infallible’ . . . – such concepts are weight-bearing within the (Christian) ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (e.g., creedal statements, theological language, liturgical materials, . . .). Toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum, the implied authority in such terms is considered (1) to be equally/consistently present throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture and (2) to be comprehensive, absolute, and final in all fields of thought. Toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum, the implied authority in such terms is considered (1) to be presented in varying ways throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture and (2) to be qualified by accepted advances in fields of thought subject to critical inquiry (e.g., the natural sciences, the social sciences, medicine, the arts, mathematics, political theory, economics, law, . . .). Does not a single qualifier eliminate absolute or unconditional meaning for such concepts in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’, et al? An analogy would be the “I am absolutely against abortion . . . except for rape or risk to the mother’s life or . . .” position re abortion. At what point do the number and/or weight of the qualifiers so restrict/condition the concepts ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’ et al that the rationale for using them is undermined? It might be argued that the accepted qualifiers correct earlier interpretations of the texts/ideas rather than creating exceptions or limits on the sources of authority (e.g., ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Jesus’, . . .) to which the concepts ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’ et al refer. This argument seems to imply that a qualifier demonstrates that the sources of authority (e.g., ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Jesus’, . . .) have been in fact ‘modern’ all along. I do not find this argument compelling.

Fragment -- #234

[September 2003 journal entry]

Expanding one’s non-discriminating exposure to ideas and to the breadth/depth of human suffering is analogous to overlaying a 3x5 card with a 5x7 card with a 6x8 card with a 8.5x11 sheet with a 11x14 sheet with . . . . Expansion keeps requiring radical examination of previously trusted paradigms. Or – unacceptable in my judgment – expanding exposure is either shut down or becomes discriminating (i.e., attention given only to observations or information favorable to the most current paradigm).

Fragment -- #233

[September 2003 journal entry]

Jewish scripture and Christian scripture are for me analogous to boxes of puzzle pieces, various selections of which can be combined into partial/incomplete pictures without any one combination that uses all the pieces. The idea of an everlasting ‘hell’ is for me a piece that stays in the box. The Ecclesiastes essay and the emerging of the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the story/play Job function for me in a way analogous to beginning to put a puzzle together by locating corner pieces and edge pieces.

Fragment -- #232

[September 2003 journal entry]

Studying the history of ideas can leave a person with an inability to make sound life judgments (i.e., ‘insane’) when the study is conducted without an unbreakable link with concrete life realities/circumstances. The history of ideas is an ever-expanding and never-exhausted/mastered field of inquiry. Without the existential link, studying the history of ideas can easily be(come) analogous to being lost in a maze and no longer searching for an exit. The existential link for me formed with my experience at the side of my first wife (d. 1987) as she was irreversibly defeated over fourteen years by multiple sclerosis. The link continues to today for me through efforts daily – both personally and professionally –to seek fresh ways to see ‘from below’.

Fragment -- #231

[September 2003 journal entry]

I have come to think in terms of six ‘focusing’ experiences –

1. maintenance (e.g., personal health and hygiene, property repair, assisting others, garbage management),
   
2. personal relationships (e.g., marriage, parenting, extended family, friends, strangers, adversaries),
   
3. professional relationships,
4. creativity (e.g., photography for me),
   
5. observation (i.e., indiscriminate awareness of the full range of human conditions),
   
6. retreat (i.e., rest, meditation).
   

I prefer the ‘focusing’ metaphor to ‘quadrant’ or ‘sphere’ because these alternatives suggest too much compartmentalization, not enough simultaneity. A well-lived life integrates/balances these six ‘focus’ experiences in response to the specific circumstances in a situation that demand attention.

Fragment -- #230

[September 2003 journal entry]

Our youngest daughter (now fourteen years old) recently disclosed the anxiety she sometimes experiences re realizing her mortality – “You are a teenager . . . then you marry . . . then your children are raised . . . then you grow old . . . then you die. There are times when it feels so fast and it’s all over. It scares me.” I offered her a perception that has assisted me in finding a measure of peace re my mortality – i.e., that at least by age thirty I had already experienced a wider and deeper life than will be the privilege of virtually all human beings (most of whom will not even conceive of such experiences). How, with this realization, can I feel penalized by illness or death? And how, with this realization, can I justify draining the resources of those near me and the resources of society when I am no longer able to make significant contribution to them?

Fragment -- #229

[September 2003 journal entry]

George Eliot (Middlemarch) –

“She (Dorothea) had no dream of being praised above other women, feeling there was always something better which she might have done if she had only been better and known better. Her full nature spent itself in deeds which left no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculable. For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts and on all those Dorotheas who live faithfully their hidden lives and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Fragment -- #228

[September 2003 journal entry]

One reason physicians found toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum experience dissonance with their practice of modern medicine is that their ‘religious’ perspective is centrally and ideally ‘paternalistic’ (e.g., their ‘God’ language) whereas the perspective essential to modern medicine is centrally and ideally ‘self-determination’.

Fragment -- #227

[August 2003 journal entry]

Walking quickly along the edge of the Vanderbilt Medical Center campus on my way to participate in an orientation session for the new class of medical students, I passed a poorly-dressed unkempt man – perhaps in his late 30s – who was walking in the direction opposite mine slowly and with a noticeable limp. Our eyes met for an instant as we passed, his hand outstretched as he asked for money. I walked by him without responding and cut diagonally toward the Medical Center. I immediately questioned myself re the obvious gap between my ideas/profession and this concrete moment. Though with only a slight margin for error re arriving on time for the orientation session, I turned around to discover the man was no longer in sight. I walked back to the point where we passed and saw him about a half-block away. I ran to him, gave him a few dollars, said “Have a better day”, and hurried away. I heard him say “Thank you”. I still felt disappointment over my response to this encounter.

Fragment -- #226

[August 2003 journal entry]

In a news interview, a woman – years after having her only child burn to death in a fire that started in the kitchen when she had gone to a neighbor’s house for some food item – said she finally forgave herself when she accepted that “God must have needed him”. I simply do not grasp how individuals find solace in such ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #225

[August 2003 journal entry]

The Synoptic Gospels portray ‘Jesus’ as having a ‘hermeneutic suspicion’ (akin to the first wave of ‘liberation theologians’) re the perspectives of the rich and the guardians of institutionalized ‘religion’.

Fragment -- #224

[August 2003 journal entry]

Looking existentially more closely/widely/deeply into the present and/or into history increases consciousness of human beings’ pain/suffering. There is no “It’s not as bad as I feared” relief.

Fragment -- #223

[July 2003 journal entry]

Thoughts on aging – (1) Since by early adulthood I had already experienced more in life (e.g., travel, education, entertainment, friendship, political liberties, . . .) than most individuals contemporary with me and virtually all individuals back into antiquity, how could my death from this point forward be considered premature or tragic (considered separately from the manner of my dying)? (2) My time to die will have come when I can no longer give or serve (rather than when I can no longer experiences pleasurable moments) and when maintenance for my existence becomes the focus and essence of my life.

Fragment -- #222

[July 2003 journal entry]

Agape . . . Phileo . . . Eros – three experiences of love that when integrated occasion fully enriching marriage (e.g., mutual respect, conversation, humanizing intimacy). (1) Agape with Phileo minus Eros leaves a diminished (but still maturing) marriage relationship caused by any number of factors (e.g., aging, personal or social trauma, biochemical changes, injury, disease, . . . – some controllable, others not). (2) Agape with Eros minus Phileo results in a more diminished marriage relationship as friendship withers (e.g., distrust, loss of confidence, estrangement, lost conversation, and even expressions/actions of disrespect) and as Eros becomes awkward (e.g., intimacy is less a shared experience, often a manipulating tool). (3) Agape shared by both parties without either Phileo or Eros leads to a radically diminished marriage relationship that nonetheless retains the constructive disposition that undergirds all meaningful relationships. The loss of Eros in this scenario requires setting one’s default on the absence of intimacy. The loss of Phileo as well as Eros in this scenario adds solitude. If Agape is retained by only one of the two parties, a constructive posture in a profoundly diminished marriage relationship remains, though the relationship at best is hardly distinguishable from encounters with a stranger or with a casual association and at worst is hardly distinguishable from encounters with an adversary.

Fragment -- #221

[July 2003 journal entry]

It is simple enough to say – “I am for justice”. I have yet to come across a person who says – “I am for injustice”. It is much more complicated to live out a commitment to justice as fairness. One reason has to do with the risks associated with such resolution. Another reason has to do with the complexity re defining/envisioning fairness. For some time, I have given thought to the way the executive leadership team (of which I am a member) for the non-profit community health center where I work employs different definitions/concepts of fairness in our decision-making from situation to situation – e.g.,

1. our seven physicians all receive the same compensation (other than a small additional stipend for the three physicians who also do surgical obstetrics),
2. our physicians have no productivity incentives,
3. our nursing and administrative support staff members are compensated as nearly as possible to their ‘market’ earning potential, with the distance from ‘market’ increasing across the compensation spectrum to the physicians (who are compensated at about 70% of their ‘market’ earning potential among community health center physicians),
4. bonuses for nursing and administrative support staff members are the same amount for all, whereas bonuses for physicians are calculated using an equation that weights tenure,
5. we are committed to delivering the same quality of care to all patients, though we intentionally give disproportionate attention to the health care needs of the most disadvantaged patients in our impoverished service area,
6. as a community health center, we make decisions re the use of human and capital resources based on public health needs/priorities,
7. we have exempted our physicians from the Saturday morning walk-in clinic schedule (covered instead by our three mid-level providers).

I suspect there are still other illustrations to be found in our decision-making. Is it legitimate to employ such varying and distinguishable interpretations of fairness within the same organization or ‘community’? If so, what holds these decisions together as ‘fair’? Is there an aesthetic quality to fairness (e.g., harmony, balance, health, beauty, reciprocity)? Are ‘treating equals equally’ and ‘treating unequals with disproportionate regard for the less powerful’ the anchors for fairness? If so, how is complacency (or resignation) re inequalities overcome? What (in)equalities by/at birth matter re fairness? Should the interests, rights, and/or liberties of some ever be sacrificed (as distinguished from being voluntarily surrendered) for the interests, rights, and/or liberties of others? How far beyond the defined/gathered ‘community’ should consequences be considered in assessing the fairness of decisions made within/for the ‘community’? How should being ‘non-profit’ affect deliberations about a fair distribution of benefits and advantages? Why do organizations intentional about fairness have/need personnel policies and procedures to address grievances?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #191

[November 2003 journal entry]

It would be accurate to describe my approach to interpreting Dietrich’s prison correspondence as ‘non-religious’ (in clear distinction from the ‘religious’ approaches to his prison correspondence common within academic and ‘religious’ circles). My ‘non-religious’ approach recognizes that Dietrich, in much of the prison correspondence, remained very ‘religious’ even as he began to see/consider the contours of a radically different (i.e., ‘non-religious’) path ahead.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #190

[November 2003 journal entry]

I have come to realize, after many years’ experience with and reflection on a ‘non-religious’ or ‘scrapheap’ approach to spirituality and ethics, that this approach is several standard deviations removed from the mean/norm. I accept the responsibility for taking the initiative in respecting and adjusting – as a guest – to the habits and perspectives of those nearer the mean/norm with whom I associate. This responsibility requires a strong and expanding capacity to tolerate the dissonance inseparable from these associations. Analogous to a bridge or a building, I measure my integrity by the degree to which I bend without breaking/crumbling.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #189

[November 2003 journal entry]

I recently met with a group of seven Christian physicians – from a variety of theological traditions -- to facilitate a review/revision of their ‘ministry statement’ (which commits them to respect and encourage one another in the shared resolve to provide medical care for the poor). The discussion revealed the extent to which several of the seven physicians who align with Calvinistic theologies (which reduce all events/experiences to divine sovereignty/will) and the underlying mental habits (e.g., uncritically accepting ‘religious’ T/O paradigm presuppositions re ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Christ’, ‘creation’, . . .) struggle to integrate such with the scientific mindset and mental habits characteristic of modern medicine. Some of the physicians proposed to distinguish patient conditions that can be medically modified from patient conditions that cannot be so modified, with ‘divine sovereignty’ associated with the latter conditions. I reminded them (1) that this approach entails a ‘God of the gaps’ theology, (2) that patient conditions once considered not modifiable have, due to medical/surgical advances, later become modifiable, and (3) that individual patients often have conditions that are modifiable up to a point beyond which their conditions are no longer modifiable. We discussed two ‘forks in the road’ – (1) the ‘human freedom understood as returning to your divinely intended nature’ (pre-modern) path or the ‘human freedom understood as autonomy’ (modern) path and (2) Erasmus’ cautious optimism that a few latent seeds of spiritual life survive in human beings or Luther’s/Calvin’s categorical insistence that the spiritual health/life of all human beings was completely destroyed by ‘the Fall’. Concerning the latter ‘fork in the road’, I suggested that Erasmus took an ‘anchor dragging’ approach to the ‘renaissance’/‘humanist’ current of ideas; Luther/Calvin, an ‘anchor firmly caught’ approach. Erasmus was cautiously open to some degree of optimism or confidence about human beings; Luther/Calvin, threatened and categorically opposed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #188

[September 2003 journal entry]

A ‘from below’/‘scrapheap’/‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics necessitates an existentially porous ‘community’ in which (1) ‘eye opening experiences’ are welcomed, (2) being face-to-face with the concrete world is encouraged and is the reason for the community to exist/gather, and (3) doubt/questioning is protected as essential to integrity. Such an approach is radically (i.e., down into the root) incompatible with an existentially non-porous ‘community’ that intentionally seals itself off from ‘eye opening experiences’ and necessitates being distracted from the concrete world. Spirituality exercises, the way specific ethical issues are addressed, and ‘God’ talk are clearly distinguishable in existentially non-porous and porous models for ‘community’. I have had three sustained experiences with an existentially porous ‘community’ – (1) the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings at O’Reilly’s Tavern with a subset of the LSU Ob/Gyn medical faculty members, (2) the visits with the children at K-Bar-B Youth Ranch run by the State of Louisiana for children removed from their homes who had been so scarred by abuse that they could not be placed in foster care, and (3) the Dayspring Family Health Center medical staff weekly breakfast gatherings at Gregory's Restaurant. I have yet to discover a church that embodies/illustrates the existentially porous model of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #187

[September 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich, in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay written for his family and his fellow conspirators, confessed crossing a crucial threshold when he assigned ‘incomparable (unparalleled) value’ to seeing ‘from below’, from the perspective of the sufferer. Crossing this threshold means embracing and resolving to sustain the experience of seeing ‘from below’, the experience of seeing from the perspective of the sufferer. Koheleth, in the Ecclesiastes essay, clearly had not yet crossed that threshold. I think it may be inferred that the author of the expanded version of the story/play Job had crossed that threshold, though no character in the story/play makes such a decision explicit in the text.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #186

[September 2003 journal entry]

It is important to incorporate the varying ways adolescence is experienced (e.g., exuberance, fear, denial, insecurity, cockiness, . . .) when developing the ‘come of age’ metaphor.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #185

[September 2003 journal entry]

Re the ‘non-religious interpretation’ method Dietrich introduced in his prison letters – I think it is very clear that Dietrich was just breaking the surface of this dramatic methodological shift. He remained very ‘religious’ even as he expressed his radical ideas to Eberhard in the prison letters. A ‘non-religious interpretation’ method must be applied to Dietrich’s prison letters to Eberhard.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #184

[September 2003 journal entry]

I think Dietrich gave up looking (in)to the church in its various familiar forms once the Confessing Church failed to be/have the ‘Present Christ’ in/for Germany. “If not the Confessing Church, then where else is there to look in the church as it has been formed and reformed up to now?” is where I see Dietrich to have moved by the prison correspondence. Yes, his prison question “Who is Christ for us today?” implies continued confidence/expectation re a ‘Present Christ’. Addressing that question led him to radical rethinking re methodology (e.g., a ‘non-religious interpretation’) and to radical rethinking re ‘community of faith’ (e.g., the ‘outline for a book’ near the end of the prison letters). I also think it is significant that Dietrich put the question in terms of ‘who’ rather than ‘where’. And remember he was looking ahead to the decisions after the war re reconstructing ‘religion’ in Germany. By the last months of the prison correspondence, I see Dietrich becoming increasingly passionate that the response after the war not be to piece back together something familiar. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #183

[September 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich (as I recall) began his 1933 Christ the Center lectures in Berlin with a ‘Present Christ’ section. He had lost this confidence in a ‘Present Christ’ as some remnant of the church (i.e., ‘religion’) after the Confessing Church failed to persist effectively as a resistance movement against the Nazis. The Bonhoeffer met in the Christ the Center lectures and in the pre-1938 Confessing Church years was very Barthian in theological orientation. Remember that Barth (who was removed by the Nazis from his teaching position at Bonn in 1934 and returned to his homeland of Switzerland where he spent the rest of his career) had just come out with the first volume of his Church Dogmatics before Dietrich presented his Christ the Center lectures in Berlin. Dietrich’s 1939 decision to return from New York City to Germany and his decision to join the Abwehr covert resistance circle necessitated that he abandon Barth’s theological method/perspective as he pondered afresh the ethical (as evident in the various drafts of his Ethics) and the theological (as evident in the prison correspondence) implications of these decisions. Note Dietrich’s stinging critiques of Barth in the prison correspondence. Remember that after the war Barth would not guide the research of students who proposed to study Bonhoeffer past the 1939 point in his life/thought.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #182

[September 2003 journal entry]

It is very important to put in historical and cultural context the ‘come of age’ metaphor (which I trace to Kant’s response to the question – What Is ‘Enlightenment’?) which points to the autonomy/accountability associated with advancing from childhood to adulthood and Dietrich’s contention in the prison correspondence (but not before as far as I have been able to tell) that theology (specifically in the German/Protestant tradition of which he was a part) must make the radical (i.e., to the root) changes necessary to catch up with and be relevant to ‘the world’ (which he was convinced would, after the war and the fall of the Nazis, move forward on a secularized path rather than turn back to pre- ‘come of age’/pre-modern perspectives) which ‘religion’ had hesitated to embrace at the price – Dietrich had concluded and I agree – of an increasing and irreversible marginalizing of ‘religion’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #181

[September 2003 journal entry]

Being ‘religious’ builds around a young/immature child metaphor for spirituality and ethics; being ‘non-religious’, around a ‘come of age’/maturing child metaphor for spirituality and ethics. Proposition – that the vision and teaching of ‘Jesus’ implies a ‘come of age’/maturing self-understanding.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #180

[August 2006 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with Renate Bethge, I suggested a spectrum with ‘enthusiastic German Christian/Church’ at one end, Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’ at the opposite end, and ‘attempt to be neutral’ at the midpoint. Renate reminded me there were distinguishable dispositions from the midpoint toward the ‘enthusiastic German Christian/Church’ end. Then she placed Otto Dibelius – who, as the first bishop of the recently formed Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenburg (1945-66), became the most prominent Protestant leader immediately after the war’s end – slightly off the midpoint toward Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’, she placed Walter Dress (theologian/churchman married to Dietrich’s younger sister) a bit past Dibelius toward Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resis’, and the vast majority of those associated with the Confessing Church further toward but noticeably short of Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’. Renate then observed – “I always felt the fact that Dietrich and Eberhard did not have wives and children made a difference in their stance against the Nazis. Niemoller represented those in the Confessing Church ranks who did risk. He had ‘Traitor to the Fatherland’ painted on his house.” I asked Renate to describe and interpret those who were content to be classified ‘moderate’. She agreed that some ‘moderates’ on either side of the ‘attempt to be neutral’ midpoint on the spectrum saw some validity to the views held on the opposing side of the midpoint. However, for others on the Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’ side of the spectrum, ‘moderate’ had to do more with the level of risk to which they would expose themselves, their families, and – in the case of pastors – their congregations.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #179

[August 2006 journal entry]

I spent another few days with Renate Bethge a few weeks ago. The many hours of conversation with the Bethges since our friendship began in 1993 have deeply enriched my search for a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics by/through which to be ‘with the world face to face’. I think often of Dietrich’s observation that “the mind’s hunger for discussion is much more tormenting than the body’s hunger for food” (25 December 1943 prison letter to Eberhard and Renate). Had Dietrich survived the descent ‘below’ as a prisoner in the brutal grip of the Gestapo, I have often wondered -- Who would have been his most cherished conversation partners if/as he continued to think through and live out the radical (i.e., into the root) ideas he anticipated in the December 1942 ‘Ten Years Later’ essay and began to see/consider in prison? No doubt many individuals would have drawn near to Dietrich, would have crowded around him. They could have satisfied some of his ‘hunger for discussion’. But I can imagine only a few who could/would have stayed in meaningful conversation with him if/as he strained to keep ‘seeing from below’. Eberhard and Renate, given their having been addressed by Dietrich in the smuggled prison correspondence, would already have been familiar with the cutting edge of Dietrich’s thought/life. Dietrich’s father (religiously/theologically agnostic), given his professional familiarity with the disturbing and in some cases bizarre psychiatric agony of his patients, could have deepened Dietrich’s experiences ‘seeing from below’ by placing such experiences within the larger context of tragic human suffering. Dietrich’s brother Karl Friedrich (also religiously/theologically agnostic), given his expertise in modern physics and given their longstanding mutual respect, could have prompted Dietrich’s resolve to become more firmly grounded in the scientific method/disciplines. Unfortunately, a new acquaintance in prison -- ‘Herr Engel’ -- would not have been there. He was killed in the 27 January 1944 bombing. Dietrich wrote of him to Eberhard (29/30 January 1944 prison letter) –

I am sorry to say that I suffered a severe loss the night before last. The man who was, to my mind, by far the most intelligent and attractive in the place was killed in the city by a direct hit. I should certainly have put him in touch with you later, and we already had plans for the future. We often had interesting talks, and the other day he brought me Daumier und die Justiz, which I still have. He was a really educated man of working-class origin, a philosopher, and father of three children. I was very much distressed by his death.

I know Dietrich’s craving for meaningful conversation. I began to realize several years ago that, the further I existentially travel on a ‘non-religious’ path by/through which to be(come) ‘with the world face to face’, the fewer and fewer my conversation partners become. I cherish each one who comes near. Since 2000 I have recorded detailed notes after each such conversation. When I am alone and the longing for meaningful conversation is especially acute, the recollections awakened by turning to these conversations as reconstructed in my notes bring relief and encouragement.