Reflections from Journal Entries
Now for another set of reflections selected/adapted from journal entries written during my Vermont years (1992-95).
31 Being ‘religionless’ means: (1) being past the point of return to the ‘religious sphere’, (2) not being able to get home to the ‘religious sphere’ by supper time, (3) experiencing a spiritual death, (4) facing the death of the language, securities, confidences, . . . offered/promised by ‘religion’, (5) suffering the diminishment/loss of ties (e.g., family, friends, . . .), (6) surrendering the professional, financial, employment securities associated with ‘religion’. I think such transformation was not yet complete for Koheleth in Ecclesiastes, or for the ‘scrapheap’ Job at the end of the story/play, or for Bonhoeffer by the end of his prison correspondence.
32 A ‘religious’ view of being human builds off of and centers on human weakness (which leads to timidity, false pride, a cultish co-dependency). A ‘non-religious’ view of being human builds off of and centers on human strength.
33 Core theses of a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics -- (1) Give expecting nothing in return. (2) Repentance is the clearest witness to the vision about which ‘Jesus’ spoke. The point here is that a ‘community’ deeply conscious that living with integrity ‘face to face with the world’ falls short of the life together envisioned in a Sermon on the Mount text retains its humility and protects the ethical challenge inherent in the vision. (3) ‘Community’ precedes ‘conversion’. The point here is that being ‘face to face with the world’ means living as if in ‘community’ with individuals one does not yet know and who may be adversarial. The motive behind these gestures of ‘community’ is not conditional or calculated (e.g., evangelistic). (4) A ‘community’ engages its mission when dispersed. (5) Every individual has infinite worth. (6) Failure is an inevitable and essential component of a well-lived life.
[Note: I have learned that such traits are difficult for physicians to maintain in the medical education/practice sphere. ‘Give expecting nothing in return’ cuts across the grain of budget accountability as well as widespread profit seeking. The enculturation that begins with medical school hardly fosters humility. Risk-management counsels caution with strangers. With the clinic or the hospital analogous to the cathedral/church building, physicians engage their mission far more often ‘in house’ than in dispersion. Living out the conviction that ‘every individual has infinite worth’ must be tested by disposition toward the most difficult patients (e.g., patients who are not compliant, not grateful, offensive, adversarial) and workers lower in the hierarchy (e.g., students, nurses, front desk staff, sanitation workers).]
34 How closely does a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics correlate with Frankl’s analysis of the search for meaning within such nihilistic realities as Auschwitz?
35 References to ‘transition of power’ and ‘Clinton takes command’ raise questions about the meaning of ‘power’ for the ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am pursuing.
Now for another set of reflections selected/adapted from journal entries written during my Vermont years (1992-95).
31 Being ‘religionless’ means: (1) being past the point of return to the ‘religious sphere’, (2) not being able to get home to the ‘religious sphere’ by supper time, (3) experiencing a spiritual death, (4) facing the death of the language, securities, confidences, . . . offered/promised by ‘religion’, (5) suffering the diminishment/loss of ties (e.g., family, friends, . . .), (6) surrendering the professional, financial, employment securities associated with ‘religion’. I think such transformation was not yet complete for Koheleth in Ecclesiastes, or for the ‘scrapheap’ Job at the end of the story/play, or for Bonhoeffer by the end of his prison correspondence.
32 A ‘religious’ view of being human builds off of and centers on human weakness (which leads to timidity, false pride, a cultish co-dependency). A ‘non-religious’ view of being human builds off of and centers on human strength.
33 Core theses of a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics -- (1) Give expecting nothing in return. (2) Repentance is the clearest witness to the vision about which ‘Jesus’ spoke. The point here is that a ‘community’ deeply conscious that living with integrity ‘face to face with the world’ falls short of the life together envisioned in a Sermon on the Mount text retains its humility and protects the ethical challenge inherent in the vision. (3) ‘Community’ precedes ‘conversion’. The point here is that being ‘face to face with the world’ means living as if in ‘community’ with individuals one does not yet know and who may be adversarial. The motive behind these gestures of ‘community’ is not conditional or calculated (e.g., evangelistic). (4) A ‘community’ engages its mission when dispersed. (5) Every individual has infinite worth. (6) Failure is an inevitable and essential component of a well-lived life.
[Note: I have learned that such traits are difficult for physicians to maintain in the medical education/practice sphere. ‘Give expecting nothing in return’ cuts across the grain of budget accountability as well as widespread profit seeking. The enculturation that begins with medical school hardly fosters humility. Risk-management counsels caution with strangers. With the clinic or the hospital analogous to the cathedral/church building, physicians engage their mission far more often ‘in house’ than in dispersion. Living out the conviction that ‘every individual has infinite worth’ must be tested by disposition toward the most difficult patients (e.g., patients who are not compliant, not grateful, offensive, adversarial) and workers lower in the hierarchy (e.g., students, nurses, front desk staff, sanitation workers).]
34 How closely does a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics correlate with Frankl’s analysis of the search for meaning within such nihilistic realities as Auschwitz?
35 References to ‘transition of power’ and ‘Clinton takes command’ raise questions about the meaning of ‘power’ for the ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am pursuing.
