A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #224

[June 2005 journal entry]

I was reminded recently of the analysis offered by Bernard of Clairvaux in On Loving God. This little work has long intrigued me, both during and after my place/years in the ‘religious’ sphere. Bernard proposed four ‘stages’ -- i.e., “love of self for self’s sake, love of God for self’s sake, love of God for God’s sake, and love of self for God’s sake”. His ‘religious’ (and very traditionally Augustinian) interpretation saw no legitimacy in “love of self for self’s sake”. He argued instead that we must be saved/redeemed from such. Bernard’s ‘religious’ presupposition re humanity’s depravity led him quite logically to the still selfish “love of God for self’s sake” (i.e., for what I receive/get) stage. He argued that such salvation/redemption from “love of self for self’s sake” leads to “love of God for self’s sake”, a childish stage that must evolve into “love of God for God’s sake”. Beyond this more mature regard for ‘God as God’, Bernard pointed to “love of self for God’s sake”, which he judged to be the most mature but rarely experienced stage. As handled within ‘religious’ discourse (e.g., Augustine, Bernard, et al) and as implied in the title On Loving God -- a condition is placed on, a limitation is set around, a distraction is introduced into any human experience. The likely ‘religious’ rejoinder is – “By focusing on God, the experience is qualitatively better for all than it otherwise could/would be.”

From a ‘non-religious’ perspective, I would agree that “love of self for self’s sake” easily/frequently collapses into destructive experience. Those deep into such experience will find meaning in ‘saved’ or ‘rescued’ language if they recover/discover a healthy self-love. The means/catalysts for such recovery/discovery are very important and interesting aspects of their stories. However, attentive parents begin early to guide their child/ren away from being a ‘taker’ to being a ‘grateful receiver’ (e.g., learning to say “thank you”) and to being a ‘giver’. From a ‘non-religious’ perspective, the goal of such parenting is not “love others for self’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who gives expecting as much or more in return) but “love self for other’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who gives expecting nothing in return) and “love of others for other’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who is truly and unconditionally respectful of others). This ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘love’ is in the spirit of Mt. 25:31-46 (which is, in my opinion, the most radical/startling text in the gospels) re being unconsciously near ‘God’, of loving the stranger/enemy (Mt. 5:38-48), and of the human-oriented way of being for which ‘blessing’ is announced (Mt. 5:3-16).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #223

[June 2005 journal entry]

I read recently the proposition that “cherished beliefs about the divine” may have be “let go” in order to “stay loyal to the suffering human being”. I agree with the proposition. However, the author was disturbingly casual when making the comment. He left me with no indication he had experienced the complexity/difficulty/pain of the choice he affirmed. Letting go of any idea, thing, or person that/who is truly/deeply “cherished” is profound, disorienting, frightening, nauseating, . . . -- all consequences/dispositions the author of the above statement did not convey (at least to me). The chilling image of ‘letting go’ for me is in the 1979 film Sophie’s Choice (based on William Styron’s novel) when Sophie – a Polish survivor of Auschwitz – finally recounts to an aspiring writer friend her darkest secret. She and her two children – Eva age four and Jan age ten – had disembarked the cramped train car at Auschwitz. They faced a sadistic Nazi doctor who ordered her to choose between (i.e., literally and symbolically to let go of one of) her two children. The one she let go would be sent directly to death in the concentration camp. Pleading in vain and sinking in utter agony, she chose her son to live. My observation has been that most individuals, when forced to choose, hold on firmly to their ‘cherished beliefs’ about the divine and let suffering human beings go. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics lets go ‘cherished beliefs’ about the divine in order to hold on to ‘suffering human beings’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #222

[June 2005 journal entry]

Teilhard de Chardin (The Divine Milieu, p. 68) -- “The great objection brought against Christianity in our time, and the real source of the distrust which insulates entire blocks of humanity from the influence of the Church, has nothing to do with historical or theological difficulties. It is the suspicion that our religion makes its followers inhuman”.

Teilhard implicitly separates intellectual honesty – historical, theological, scientific, political, . . . – from being ‘human’. I would instead associate (not equate) intellectual honesty – which necessitates critical examination of ‘historical or theological difficulties’ -- with being ‘human’. I do agree with Teilhard’s proposition re a widespread suspicion that Christianity makes its followers ‘inhuman’. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics – with a view of ‘Jesus’ as essentially human – takes this suspicion seriously and measures itself by the damage or enrichment done to every person’s humanity.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #221

[May 2005 journal entry]

I sense that far fewer than I previously imagined are ready for, capable of, and/or interested in exploring a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics. Therefore, I am inclined to be quieter.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #220

[May 2005 journal entry]

Since 1992 I have been attempting to express sequels to the Ecclesiastes essay, to the story/play about the ‘scrapheap’ Job, to Bonhoeffer’s the beginnings in his prison correspondence of a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #219

[April 2005 journal entry]

I recently noticed this observation from Dietrich in a 1941 letter (quoted in Kuhns, In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 38) -- “I really believe that a great deal depends on what one experiences in his twenties, and above all on how he experiences it.” His observation was certainly true for me.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #218

[March 2005 journal entry]

A few months ago, I began to study music theory through personal research/reading and through tutorial discussions with a musician friend. In my youth, I learned to play several instruments (e.g., the piano, the trombone, the baritone, the trumpet, the guitar). I have continued to play the piano. However, I gained little understanding of music composition/theory. The impetus for beginning this study of music composition/theory has been my desire to see/hear Dietrich the musician (specifically, the pianist) in his actions/thoughts (particularly in the prison letters). I have long been aware of the places in the prison letters where he draws explicitly from music composition/theory. As photography has become increasingly grounding/centering/defining for me as a ‘non-religious’ exercise over the past several years, my desire to see/hear more clearly/insightfully Dietrich the musician has grown.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #217

[March 2005 journal entry]

To be ‘skeptical’ – L. scepticus from Gr. skeptikos – is to be thoughtful, inquiring, questioning. Being ‘skeptical’ may devolve into being ‘cynical’, but does not inevitably do so. Sustaining a healthy (rather than cynical) skeptical attitude is essential to a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #216

[February 2005 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics builds off of and reinforces inner independence. I agree with the association Dietrich -- in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay -- proposed between foolishness and the surrender of self-reliance to displays of power and promises of security/control from political or religious figures/institutions. Churches toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum either demand the surrender (subjection) of one’s inner independence or accept such surrender (often with celebration). Churches toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum are less comfortable with and may resist such surrender.

Fragment -- #307

[September 2005 journal entry]

I appreciate the Quaker tradition’s setting the default on ‘silence’. I understand setting the default on ‘silence’ to mean that breaking the ‘silence’ must be justified, that what is said is more substantive than the ‘silence’.

Fragment -- #306

[August 2005 journal entry]

My default is set to be fully transparent in the numerous simultaneous gatherings/conversations in which I participate. When with those individuals with whom I conspire (i.e., ‘breath together’), being freely transparent is a gift, a joy. When in casual gatherings/conversations, I tend to be quiet or to ask questions. When in gatherings/conversations ripe for clashes, I tend to be quiet or to respond ambiguously (i.e., true but not full disclosure). Only in gatherings/conversations against which I am compelled to engage in subversive action (analogous to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in covert resistance against Hitler and the Nazis) would I feel justified in covering my true thoughts with contradictory speech.

Fragment -- #305

[August 2005 journal entry]

Without the resolve to be consistent within numerous simultaneous gatherings/conversations, the concentration and energy required to keep the gatherings/conversations compartmentalized crushes creativity, spontaneity, adventure.

Fragment -- #304

[August 2005 journal entry]

I do not recall having someone – in person or in print – as a guide, as an example, as a conversation partner in thinking/working through the significance of who/how I am in relation to those individuals from whom I am inclined to recoil or turn away. I would trace my experience/formation in this regard as follows – e.g., (1) my mother telling me as a child that she always could tell when I was not telling the truth (i.e., “I can read you like a book”), (2) my older cousin Albert’s speech impediment and limp, our bond, the reaction of my friends when he visited (i.e., “Will I be the same when Albert is absent as when he is present?”), (3) being with my first wife during her battle with multiple sclerosis (i.e., “Will I be the same when apart from her as when I am with her?”), (4) the increasing number of gatherings/conversations as I became a history/spirituality/ethics resource/prompter (e.g., graduate students, fellow faculty, medical faculty, medical students, et al), (5) . . . .

Fragment -- #303

[August 2005 journal entry]

I find the thought that in any particular encounter all encounters are compressed a truly breathtaking thought.

Fragment -- #302

[August 2005 journal entry]

One can be consistently brutal or cynical or selfish or . . . . My intent is to be consistently present, not harmful, respectful, . . . in a comprehensive and non-discriminating way. Being comprehensive and non-discriminating is tested by who/how I am with/toward those I am inclined to shun/exclude. Those individuals I am not presently inclined to shun/exclude could at any time fall into circumstances characteristic of those individuals I am inclined to shun/exclude. I could at any time fall into circumstances characteristic of those individuals I am inclined to shun/exclude.

Fragment -- #301

[August 2005 journal entry]

“Most paintings are influenced more by other paintings than by the natural world, and most books are about other books” (A Center That Holds, p. 499). Which ones are not? Note how medicine can be similar. Medical ethics also. ‘Religion’ also.

Fragment -- #300

[August 2005 journal entry]

Add to the four ‘landmarks’ I recommended to my daughters – always be musically active.

Fragment -- #299

[August 2005 journal entry]

Metaphors – an anchor . . . centripetal force . . . balance . . . footing . . . focus . . . to calibrate . . . a map . . . orientation . . .

Fragment -- #298

[August 2005 journal entry]

At what amount should a person attempt to return found money – a coin? a dollar? several dollars?

Fragment -- #297

[July 2005 journal entry]

I have been thinking recently about creating a spectrum re the timing of severe experiences that expose one’s views/ideas to be nothing more than ‘a house of cards’. The spectrum would move from teenage years (e.g., Eli Wiesel’s Holocaust experience) to young adult years (e.g., my experience with my first wife as multiple sclerosis destroyed her) to mature adult years (e.g., Victor Frankl’s Holocaust experience) to late adult years (e.g., C. S. Lewis’ experience with his wife’s death due to cancer). The point of the spectrum has to do with distinguishing the significance of timing re responses to traumatic experiences that occur in one’s life.

Fragment -- #296

[July 2005 journal entry]

Aaron (the brother of Moses) – a study in being disillusioned with one’s self.

Fragment -- #295

[July 2005 journal entry]

I recently heard a comment about a late-40s pastor who relocated a few years ago from a more progressive church to a more safely conventional church. One comment about this pastor still echoes in my mind – “He is not thinking aggressively any longer”. I cannot imagine such a time.

Fragment -- #294

[June 2005 journal entry]

Imagine a dinner table long enough for at least three separate conversations simultaneously to occur. (1) At one end of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that prohibits any serious questions. Unless the individuals sitting together at this end of the table happen to confess the same ‘faith’, the conversation inevitably breaks down. There is no motive or method for seeking common ground around a shared way of being ‘with the world face to face’. (2) In the middle of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that encourages inquiry for the purpose of understanding the affirmed ‘faith’. The discussion will reveal the degree of difference/diversity re ‘faith’ among the participants. They value the resulting understanding of themselves and their theological neighbor. They need to find a non-theological common ground in order to sustain the conversation without degenerating into the competitiveness heard to their right. (3) Toward the other end of the table, ‘faith’ itself is subject to inquiry. They approach ‘faith’ as that which is intellectually and existentially trusted in life situations. They do not juxtapose ‘faith’ and radical/critical thinking. They have reason to welcome diverse points of view. They clarify early in the conversation what they share in common in their way of being, from which emerges the significance of their discussion.

Fragment -- #293

[September 2006 journal entry]

This past Monday marked five years since the 11 September 2001 plane hijackings that led to thousands of injuries and deaths when New York City’s ‘Twin Towers’ collapsed and the Pentagon was severely damaged. I grieve for that day’s victims. I also grieve for the thousands upon thousands of victims for whom the Bush administration and their champions are accountable. I still stand by the objection I voiced against the Bush administration’s immediately casting the 11 September 2001 tragedies in a language/imagery reminiscent of the medieval Crusades and calling for a misinformed Congress to declare war with imprecise wording easily manipulated by the Bush administration. I still stand with those who supported exhausting the potential of casting the 11 September 2001 tragedies in the language/imagery of criminal behavior. With the language/imagery of criminal behavior, might the perpetrators of the 11 September 2001 tragedies have been marginalized rather than galvanized/lionized? might Osama bin Laden et al have been captured? might the Taliban in Afghanistan have been completely eliminated? might the ‘cells’ of likeminded criminals in this country have been exposed? might Iran have been restrained? might an international unity have been sustained? might the New Orleans calamity have been admirably managed? might . . . ? We will never know. Instead, the Bush administration drank/pushed a poisonous mixture of foolish/careless ‘neoconservative’ political ideology and ‘fundamentalist’/‘evangelical’ Christian theocracy that necessitates a ‘Crusades’ language/imagery of war. Is there another ‘renaissance’ on the horizon?

Fragment -- #292

[April 2005 journal entry]

As I continue to observe individuals in the routines of living, I am again and again struck by the impression that most individuals look to be sufficiently satisfied with their world/life view to move forward.

Fragment -- #291

[April 2005 journal entry]

Voltaire appears also to have felt discomfort, even embarrassment, due to having a life advantaged to a degree that separated him from the vast majority of his contemporaries (cf. Neiman, The Problem of Evil: An Alternative History of Philosophy, p. 131). Reading Neiman’s history has enriched my reflections on the ‘1755 Lisbon earthquake’ experiences of life – i.e., seismic experiences that reduce to rubble poorly constructed houses/buildings of ideas, that reveal the (lack of) integrity of individuals far enough removed not to be harmed but near enough not to avoid seeing.

Fragment -- #290

[April 2005 journal entry]

‘Fideism’ cannot by definition be a choice or a result of the exercise of reason.

Fragment -- #289

[April 2005 journal entry]

The depth/breadth of beauty and of pain/suffering are such that I cannot ‘make sense’ of the world. I do attempt always to take the world seriously, to see the world ‘from below’ (in the scientific and existential nuances of ‘from below’). I reject ideas that ‘make nonsense’ of the world.

Fragment -- #288

[February 2005 journal entry]

‘Life’ represents a spectrum that encompasses all forms of ‘life’ – from no sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’ to the highest levels of sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’. Scientific inquiries over the past century or so have demonstrated that non-human ‘life’ forms have variations not previously known from the least sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’ across the spectrum to higher levels of sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’. Advances in medical interventions over the past century or so have made it possible to sustain the existence of human ‘life’ where there is no (longer any) sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’.

Fragment -- #287

[February 2005 journal entry]

To be compassionate is to be truly present with another.

Fragment -- #286

[January 2005 journal entry]

“It must be remembered that he was writing primarily for himself. . . . He communicated his work to a restricted circle, with no hope of having it published.” (A reflection on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin by his cousin Marguerite in her introductory essay to The Making of a Mind: Letters From a Soldier-Priest 1914-1919, letters he sent to her during his service as a stretcher-bearer during World War One.) The pensees (thoughts) recorded in my journal entries since 1992 have been written with no particular readers in mind and with no expectation of publication. None of what I have written has been restricted by what any particular reader/s would understand or find interesting. I fully realize that few (if any) readers may ever spend time with these thoughts. If I limited/restricted myself to writing that about which a particular readership will/can understand and care, I would/could not engage in a radical (i.e., to the root) examination of ideas.