The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #111

[July 2006 journal entry]

A word study is in order re ‘evil’ in the story/play and in the larger context surrounding the story/play. Job does not point -- either in the prologue or in the heated exchanges with his three close friends -- to the prologue’s Accuser as an independent, separate, and/or primary source for evil. In the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘God’ is not just a monarch with unquestioned power. In the paradigm’s (D)euteronomic form trusted by Job and his three close friends, ‘God’ is expected to act/rule as a good/benevolent monarch who protects/rewards the righteous and who punishes/defeats the unrighteous. The author of the early Christian letter James extended his defense of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to the point of arguing that nothing from ‘God’ could be evil or stem from malevolent motives. All texts/writers in Jewish scripture and in Christian scripture are much nearer to James than to the ‘scrapheap’ perspective in the story/play Job or to the Ecclesiastes essay. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being driven away from the confidence and security in divine providence promised by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The heated exchanges with his three close friends leave him in the untenable position of concluding that ‘God’ (as he has to this point understood the term ‘God’) is capable of engaging in profoundly evil actions with sobering/frightening malevolent motives toward human beings. By untenable I mean that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thinking must keep moving because this position leaves him no way within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either to respect/honor ‘God’ or to lament before ‘God’ in anticipation of deliverance/relief.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #110

[July 2006 journal entry]

What, from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, is evil about the violent events and devastating experiences recounted in the prologue? What criteria for distinguishing good from evil are common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? What makes an event/experience evil? Koheleth (in Ecclesiastes essay) uses blunt terms such as ‘offensive’, ‘tragic’, ‘grievously wrong’ in reference to human suffering/misery. The ‘scrapheap’ Job insists on similarly radical (i.e., to the root) interpretations of human suffering/misery. Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery found in other parts of Jewish scripture or in Christian scripture? Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery permitted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? by ‘Jesus’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #109

[July 2006 journal entry]

The frightening calamities (1:13-19) -- from the Sabeans’ violence to destructive lightning to the Chaldeans’ deadly aggression to the terrible storm -- are all attributed to ‘God’ in the story/play. The same explanation occurs re Job’s humiliating afflictions in the second cycle of calamities (2:1-10). Job, in his first lines in the prologue, accounts for the calamities with “the Lord gave” and “the Lord has taken away” (1:20-21). The narrator makes the point that the prologue Job “did not charge God with wrong” (1:22), apparently meaning Job does not accuse ‘God’ of injustice or malevolence when he attributes the calamities to ‘God’. In response to his humiliating afflictions, the prologue Job speaks of receiving good and evil from ‘God’ (revealing that he considers the wave of calamities as well as his personal afflictions to be ‘evil’). Yet the narrator repeats that Job “did not sin with his lips” (2:10). Are Job’s two responses in the prologue acceptable to/within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #108

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is there any sense of ‘friend’ (as in Peterson’s translation) in the Hebrew word translated ‘servant’ (RSV)? The Hebrew word can imply a special relationship (e.g., references to ‘my servants the prophets’, Moses, Joshua, angels, the patriarchs). The Hebrew word can refer to an acquaintance, to a fellow-citizen, or simply to another person. I think of ‘friend’ or ‘servant’ in the prologue description of Job as ‘confidant with influence’. I find no sense of humility or of being ‘among the least of these’ or of ‘taking a lower seat’. I would cast Job in the story/play as aristocratic, as nobility. He has liberties and privileges, even before ‘God’, others do not have.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #107

[July 2006 journal entry]

It seems a contradiction to adhere to and advocate a democratic political structure for society and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that depends/draws on the language/imagery characteristic of a monarchical political structure. It also seems a contradiction to adhere to and live by a modern/scientific view of nature and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that is inseparable from a pre/non-scientific view of nature.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #106

[July 2006 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as represented in the story/play Job, ‘God’ must remain unsullied from corruption, removed from the taint of his creation/creatures, and, therefore, contacted only through such worship media as sacrifice and prayer. Think in terms of the distance/barriers between a monarch and the population. A monarch does not tolerate being questioned. The spectrum for the population under a monarchy runs from bowing passively to confronting a corrupt monarch to rejecting royalty of any sort.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #105

[Explanatory Note] The phrase ‘from the scrapheap’ (the defining perspective for me in the story/play Job), the phrase ‘life under the sun’ (the defining perspective for me in the Ecclesiastes essay), and the phrases ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ (the defining perspectives for me in Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence) lead to the center/heart of the perspective on spirituality and ethics I have been intentionally pursuing since the early 1970s. The journal entries (1992-present) I am sharing via this website constitute my most unfiltered attempt to understand this experience. My understanding and use of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay have matured significantly with the opportunity -- in twice-monthly discussions 1999-2006 with a Hebrew language/literature specialist friend -- to present/test the results from my sustained/intense meditation (analogous to attending the same Broadway play several times each week year after year) on the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay. I kept detailed notes from these discussions. Each discussion was conducted in tutorial fashion, with specific attention to my specialist friend’s judgment whether the Hebrew text permits/tolerates my appropriation of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay as I have attempted to stay on a ‘scrapheap’/‘life under the sun’/‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ path. He has freely shared his expertise with the Hebrew language and Wisdom Literature. I have disciplined myself not to press him to agree with my conclusions or with the associated approach to spirituality and ethics. I accept full responsibility and accountability for the ideas that have withstood the scrutiny/pressure of this crucible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #104

[September 2006 journal entry]

The story/play assumes a cosmology in which ‘God’ is ‘out there’, in which the Accuser and other angelic messengers are viewed as coming in/out of a celestial chamber ‘out there’, . . . (cf.1:6ff and many similar places in the story/play). How critical is this pre/non-scientific cosmology to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? I would argue it is essential to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, a necessity that becomes increasingly evident as one scans the 17^th-century forward theological spectrum from ‘liberal’ across to ‘fundamentalist’. The assumed cosmology in the story/play is absolutely critical re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s perspective on divine sovereignty.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #103

[September 2006 journal entry]

I find it thought provoking to associate the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the story of the prophet Nathan before King David, with Shostakovich before Stalin, with a concentration camp survivor. What would these associations imply re ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #102

[September 2006 journal entry]

In light of the surprise affirmation of Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts (42:7-9) near the end of the story/play, is the narrator encouraging the reader/audience to defy ‘God’? One trait of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality (some variation of which would be an alternative for the ‘scrapheap’ Job should he choose to take the next steps away from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is that individuals are encouraged to address ‘God’ bravely, in strength.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #101

[September 2006 journal entry]

Job’s three close friends bless ‘God’ by maintaining the ‘religious’ theologically orthodox (T/O) paradigm, by following protocol, by ‘sucking up’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to defy ‘God’ in the sense of ‘blessing God out’. Does he disown or reject ‘God’ (and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm)? I think the story leaves the ‘scrapheap’ Job (and the issue of his integrity) at this very fork in his spiritual road. To maintain his integrity, I think he only has one option – i.e., to reject ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to which he had long been loyal. Certainly from within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (to which his three close friends remain unwaveringly loyal), the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be seen as having moved across the theological spectrum to the threatening position of disowning or rejecting ‘God’. Once relief comes from his tragedies at the story/play’s end, how will the ‘scrapheap’ Job maintain his integrity? Can he return to his place as a teacher within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community without violating his integrity? How will he parent? How will he speak at the city gate? Will he sacrifice his aristocratic privileges in order to sustain a ‘scrapheap’ perspective? Will he add his ‘scrapheap’ voice to the caravan travelers’ stories?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #100

[September 2006 journal entry]

Catching the word play that differentiates ‘defy’/‘curse’ from ‘bless’ requires an eye for irony. The idea of ‘defy’/‘curse’ then is to mutter “yeah, right” under one’s breath after saying “blessed”. Perhaps the play on the word for ‘bless’ (one of many subtle word plays that are developed through the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends that separate the prologue from the epilogue) is an illustration of the use of contrast to get the attention of the careful reader/audience. To explore the various and surprising nuances for key terms such as ‘defy’ in the prologue, the Accuser (and, I would propose, the narrator) presents a clever, ironic, even sarcastic perspective. Does Job ever represent/express a similar perspective?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #99

[September 2006 journal entry]

Of his children, Job wonders anxiously, “Maybe one of them sinned by defying God inwardly” (1:5, Peterson’s Message of Job). Is Peterson’s ‘defy’ an appropriate rendering (‘curse’ in the RSV)? The Hebrew word translated ‘defy’/‘curse’ is an intensive form of the word for ‘bless’. Perhaps this choice is an example of a hesitation even to speak/write in any other way than to bless ‘God’. In a way, ‘curse’ is a stronger translation than ‘defy’ in that ‘curse’ more definitively connotes rejection. But in another way, ‘defy’ is a stronger translation than ‘curse’ in that ‘defy’ suggests the courage to stand up to and challenge ‘God’. Could/should the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarks in the heated exchanges with his three close friends be construed as a disclosure that he in fact does ‘defy God inwardly’? What would ‘defying God inwardly’ have entailed if Job’s children (in the prologue) had done so as they were partying? And is ‘merry-making’ being criticized in the story?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #98

[July 2006 journal entry]

I had not listened closely to the words of the widely/frequently heard contemporary ‘Christian music’ song -- Blessed Be Your Name – until sitting (silently) in a Sunday morning gathering of the ‘house church’ we have been attending since moving to Memphis. Note how the song’s words affirm/celebrate the ‘God’ language and T/O paradigm represented in the prologue + epilogue fairy tale version of the story of Job. Note how the ‘scrapheap’ Job met in the extended middle section of the full text of the story is entirely absent. Note how the words are sung passionately, enthusiastically, without ambiguity, without angst.

Blessed be your name in the land that is plentiful, where your streams of abundance flow.

Blessed be your name when I’m found in the desert place, though I walk through the wilderness.

Blessed be your name when the sun shines down on me, when the world’s all as it should be.

Blessed be your name on the road marked with suffering, though there’s pain in the offering.

Every blessing you pour out, I’ll turn back to praise.

When the darkness closes in, Lord, still I will say --

“Blessed be the name of the Lord. Blessed be your name. Blessed be your glorious name.”

You give and take away.

My heart will choose to say –

“Lord, blessed be your name.”

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #231

[August 2006 journal entry]

“You do all things well . . . just look at our lives” – yet another example in a contemporary ‘Christian music’ song of the complete disconnection from and the discriminating/purged view of reality ‘under the sun’ characteristic of ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies. Such theologies lack, resist, and/or condemn ‘tragic’, ‘offensive’, ‘grievously wrong’, . . . language/reflection re the breadth/depth of human suffering/misery.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #230

[August 2006 journal entry]

A painful consequence of moving from the ‘religious’ path I inherited and traveled into my early 30s to the ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ path I have been describing and interpreting in my journal entries since 1992 is rooted in the shift in my primary/defining focus/concentration to seeing ‘from below’, to seeing from the perspective of the sufferer, to seeing from the perspective of the stranger/adversary. My closest/deepest relationships are with similarly focused/concentrating individuals. The pain stems from diminished closeness/intimacy with individuals – including family members and close friends – who have secondary/conditional focus/concentration on seeing ‘from below’, on seeing from the perspective of the sufferer, on seeing from the perspective of the stranger/adversary.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #229

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re The Matrix – to be ‘religious’ is to take the blue pill; to be ‘non-religious’ is to take the red pill.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #228

[April 2006 journal entry]

As my life continues to unfold in the search/pursuit of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality/ethics/theology, I see/find myself in experiences beyond Dietrich, beyond the author of the Ecclesiastes essay, beyond the ‘scrapheap’ Job, in a sense beyond ‘Jesus’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #227

[September 2005 journal entry]

Twice Dietrich Bonhoeffer said only the following in meetings of pastors during the Nazi years (cf., I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 71) --

One man asks: “What is to come?” The other: “What is right?” And that is the difference between the free man and the slave.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #226

[September 2005 journal entry]

Using the pivot foot metaphor – to be ‘religious’ is to have one’s pivot foot planted in the ‘religious’ sphere whereas to be ‘non-religious’ is to have one’s pivot foot planted ‘with the world face to face’.

Fragment -- #316

[August 2006 journal entry

A physician acquaintance recalled in a recent conversation a meeting with a financial planner during the last year of residency. Several of his fellow residents responded in predictably materialistic ways when the financial planner asked the group, “What are your financial goals?” My friend stunned the financial planner when he responded, “Generosity”.

Fragment -- #315

[August 2006 journal entry]

I will say only what I can with integrity think and (aspire to) live.

Fragment -- #314

[July 2006 journal entry]

I am seeking a way through life that requires/demands imagination in order to see, to proceed, to be understood.

Fragment -- #313

[March 2006 journal entry]

The 4 March 2006 Commercial Appeal included an op-ed column by David Brooks -- ‘Headed to Harvard? All is not lost’ -- re becoming truly educated. His proposals –

1. read Reinhold Niebuhr,
   
2. read Plato’s Gorgias,
   
3. take a course on ancient Greece,
   
4. learn a foreign language,
   
5. spend a year abroad,
   
6. take a course in neuroscience,
   
7. take a statistics course,
   
8. forget about your career for once in your life.
   

I have been thinking about his question and his proposals. Here is part of what I think I might propose (not in any particular order) to undergraduate students re becoming educated –

1. a course on the decade of the 60s (United States and international),
   
2. a course on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (Reinhold Niebuhr would be a good United States theological point of reference because of his adapting his theological and ethical views to political realities, but I would prefer Dietrich Bonhoeffer),
   
3. A course on Middle East history since the late 19^th century,
   
4. A course on ancient Rome (ancient Greece would be in the background, but the United States today is much more evident in ancient Rome),
   
5. a course about the Human Genome Project,
   
6. a course on appreciating art, music, dance, poetry (international),
   
7. a course on history (any period) seen from the perspective of the powerless, the victims, the losers,
   
8. a course on the link between fundamentalism (not limited to Christianity, not limited to religion) and violence,
   
9. a course on the nature/limits of language,
   
10. a course on Camus’ The Plague,
    
11. create a discussion group in which each member reads the entire New York Times every day,
    
12. keep a journal of all substantive conversations. I will stop the list at this point.

Fragment -- #312

[November 2005 journal entry]

The death count has passed 86,000 from the recent earthquake that struck the mountainous region separating India and Pakistan. The difficult terrain insures thousands more will perish, especially with winter approaching. And then there are the severely injured. Such events are analogous to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Yet I do not detect existential, theological, or philosophical trauma being confessed/expressed as was the case among theologians and philosophers after the Lisbon earthquake. Why not? To look closely, widely, and without discrimination at ‘life under the sun’ is to be unavoidably on the edge of despair.

Fragment -- #311

[October 2005 journal entry]

I am determined to remain aware that my life experiences have had such abundance and privilege that I must consider myself in the less than 1% similarly ‘affluent’ (L., ad + fluere) among all those who have lived during my lifetime. The less than 1% ‘affluent’ classification is relative in that there is a less than 1% experience of ‘affluence’ at every point along the timeline of human history. Is there a less than 1% group at the opposite end of the spectrum? Or do the standard deviations only move away from the masses of people in the ‘affluent’ direction?

Fragment -- #310

[October 2005 journal entry]

For some time, I have made a habit of keeping a one-dollar bill in my pocket in order to have a dollar ready to give destitute (looking) individuals with whom I make eye contact while walking. The gesture may or may not be helpful to the individual. Making sure a dollar bill is in my pocket reminds me to seek eye contact with these individuals. Giving the dollar bill reinforces my desire to be the sort of person who is ready to participate generously/sacrificially in more coordinated efforts designed to make a difference for destitute individuals.

Fragment -- #309

[October 2005 journal entry]

With two seats on the Supreme Court being vacated in recent months, there has been considerable public discussion either about or based upon assumptions re the underpinnings of the United States Constitution (as amended, which point implies something substantive about the initial draft). I have been thinking specifically about such underlying assumptions as various approaches to epistemology, ontology, ethics, religion, science, political theory, international ‘community’, the environment, . . . . A spectrum re perceptions and methods for interpreting the United States Constitution can be constructed parallel to a spectrum for doing theology, with each spectrum having a threshold separating more fundamentalist/evangelical from more liberal perceptions and methods.

Fragment -- #308

[October 2005 journal entry]

I am reclining on our patio with a cup of coffee, breathing the morning air as therapy for a respiratory illness. I am watching the sunlight slowly spread across the leaves of the oak tree in the center of our backyard. First I heard the birds. Now I am tracking the birds and the squirrels as they begin their day. I hear cars, a few passing the front of our house and more traveling down nearby Poplar Avenue. I just spent several minutes eyeing the moon as it moved across an opening in the tree branches. I feel the gentle breeze. I follow leaf after leaf (including a green one) on its downward journey to the ground.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #225

[September 2005 journal entry]

It appears to me that -- from the perspective of ‘religion’ and the T/O paradigm -- a ‘natural disaster’ is a ‘Divine or Providence disaster’.