– reflections from journal entries
71 [February 1999 journal entry] I recently had a conversation about whether or not Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have remained on the ‘non-religious’ path he had begun to describe/interpret in his prison correspondence. I think there is strength in this speculation. I developed three lines of reflection in the conversation. (1) The post-war draw/inclination was toward rebuilding (as much and as quickly as possible) the familiar or ‘norm’ (analogous to the ending of the story/play Job). Guardians of the ‘religious’ tradition/sphere -- especially the leaders of the ‘Confessing Church’ and those ‘religious’ leaders who took safer positions during the Nazi/Hitler years, but minus the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ – were poised to do this rebuilding in the 'religious' sphere in post-war Germany. Bonhoeffer’s ‘religionless’ ideas were and would for some time after the war remain unknown apart from the Bethges and a few former students. The ‘Confessing Church’ leaders who had known Bonhoeffer before his imprisonment would have expected Bonhoeffer to return to being a pastor/theologian as in his pre-1939 Confessing Church years. (2) The focus/interest within the ‘religious’ sphere re Bonhoeffer continues to stop short of a radical (i.e., to the root) interpretation of or defining link with the possible directions Bonhoeffer’s emerging ‘religionless’ ideas in the prison correspondence could have taken him. (3) Bonhoeffer would have had to reposition himself outside the ‘religious’ sphere (including giving up pastoral or ‘religious’ academic appointments).
72 [February 1999 journal entry] Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Eberhard Bethge experienced and spoke of ‘friendship in the singular’ as distinct from the ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’ of traditional Lutheran theology (i.e., state, work, church, family). My definition/use of societal ‘spheres’ corresponds to some degree with the Lutheran definition/use of ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’. One difference is that I have more differentiated spheres in mind than represented in the Lutheran tradition – e.g., education, arts, medicine. Another difference would be the correspondence of my references to ‘spheres’ with existential references to ‘stages’ and to societal controls imposed on individuals. ‘Spheres’ constitute the infrastructure of a society. Such ‘spheres’ determine the rights, obligations, and prerequisites by/through which participants know who they are and how they should act. Bonhoeffer wondered if ‘freedom’ (with which he associated ‘friendship in the singular’) should be considered a ‘mandate’ or ‘order’. I wonder if ‘freedom’ (and, therefore, ‘friendship in the singular’) is possible only beyond ‘spheres’? I would propose that a societal ‘sphere’ can tolerate a limited/conditional ‘freedom’ (i.e., up to the point of threatening or challenging the ‘sphere’). I would also propose that the ‘freedom’ Bonhoeffer linked with ‘friendship in the singular’ (as well as with his ‘religionless Christianity’ and his last thoughts about ‘church’) is beyond, outside, and independent to all societal ‘spheres’.
73 [February 1999 journal entry] The ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am following requires that I retain/protect my independence while participating in the medical sphere. Doing so means (1) that I must always be willing to surrender any sense of place/privilege (i.e., I must not be seduced by offers of security), (2) that I must never be more than a guest (i.e., I must not seduced by the possibility of tenure), (3) that I must resist a ‘uniform’ look or manner/disposition.
74 [February 1999 journal entry] The following reflections came after a conversation with Eberhard and Renate Bethge late into the night during a recent visit with them in their home outside Bonn. (1) Some search for or seek out the ‘freedom’ and the resulting identity that are not predetermined by societal ‘spheres’. Others are forced to do so without desire for or valuing the task/search. Is one group more likely than the other to re-root themselves in ‘freedom’ and, therefore, in radical liberty from societal ‘spheres’? (2) The deeper the experience in and loyalty to a ‘sphere’, the more diminished ‘freedom’ becomes. It is critical to retain sufficient strength to be able to overcome the gravitational pull inward/back to the sphere’s center. Otherwise, the defining experience and character associated with ‘freedom’ are lost. Perhaps a core purpose of my low profile and ‘arcane’ gatherings on the margins of ‘spheres’ – e.g., the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings in New Orleans or the Bonhoeffer reading group here or our family’s dinner table talks, or . . . – are as much to protect my ability to exit from societal ‘spheres’ as it is to create a strategy to leaven them.
75 [February 1999 journal entry] Bonhoeffer anticipated/predicted in his prison letters to Bethge the demise/marginalization of ‘religion’ after World War I in Germany and other European nations. This demise/marginalization did not happen completely in any of these countries (e.g., to varying degrees in Holland, Germany, France; less so in Italy, Spain). ‘Religion’ survived in England and thrived in the United States after World War I. The point here is (1) not that a ‘non-religious’ alternative direction is invalid, but (2) that becoming thoroughly ‘non-religious’ requires turning away from the available safety/familiarity of ‘religion’ and develops with an overlapping of language (e.g., ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘love’, ‘evil’, . . .).
One part of any writing (for me, at least) re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics has to be an explanation of how long, laborious, and complicated it is to become thoroughly ‘non-religious’. This process for me has stretched from the seed ideas in the mid-1970s to the departure by 1991 from any official place/role in the ‘religious’ sphere. And then from 1992 forward, this process has involved finalizing the break while raising children. Much of my thought since 1992 has focused on interpreting the experience of becoming and remaining truly/meaningfully ‘non-religious’.
To be ‘non-religious’ (both in reference to the ‘religious’ sphere and to the ‘religious’ character of every societal sphere) is to be awkward within any societal sphere, to be a visitor or guest within any societal sphere, to be discontent within any societal sphere.
How likely is it that very many will dare to or be compelled to seek a ‘non-religious’ path? Does it require (1) traumatic exposure to ‘innocent suffering’? (2) a spontaneous/non-structured personality type? (3) a greater than average intellectual ability? (4) a classical education (including history and historical methodology)? (5) an advanced theological education? (6) . . . ? In a recent conversation with a close physician friend, he answered that such traits and more are required in order to cut through layer after layer of insulation separating ‘religion’ and ‘world’.
A ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’ entails the gathering/interaction of individuals each one of whom has leadership traits (1) because each one has experienced an individual/solitary passage to a ‘non-religious’ path and (2) because each one can maintain his/her spiritual journey alone if necessary. Are there any ‘followers’ (with a hierarchy of ‘leaders’ analogous to the ‘religious’ sphere) in a ‘non-religious’ community? I do not think so among those already on this path. What are the implications for parenting in a ‘non-religious’ manner?
76 [March 1999 journal entry] Must one have previously been ‘religious’ in order to be(come) ‘non-religious’? Bonhoeffer was. And I was. Is there a parallel to the necessity of being ‘modern’ in order to be ‘post-modern’?
71 [February 1999 journal entry] I recently had a conversation about whether or not Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have remained on the ‘non-religious’ path he had begun to describe/interpret in his prison correspondence. I think there is strength in this speculation. I developed three lines of reflection in the conversation. (1) The post-war draw/inclination was toward rebuilding (as much and as quickly as possible) the familiar or ‘norm’ (analogous to the ending of the story/play Job). Guardians of the ‘religious’ tradition/sphere -- especially the leaders of the ‘Confessing Church’ and those ‘religious’ leaders who took safer positions during the Nazi/Hitler years, but minus the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ – were poised to do this rebuilding in the 'religious' sphere in post-war Germany. Bonhoeffer’s ‘religionless’ ideas were and would for some time after the war remain unknown apart from the Bethges and a few former students. The ‘Confessing Church’ leaders who had known Bonhoeffer before his imprisonment would have expected Bonhoeffer to return to being a pastor/theologian as in his pre-1939 Confessing Church years. (2) The focus/interest within the ‘religious’ sphere re Bonhoeffer continues to stop short of a radical (i.e., to the root) interpretation of or defining link with the possible directions Bonhoeffer’s emerging ‘religionless’ ideas in the prison correspondence could have taken him. (3) Bonhoeffer would have had to reposition himself outside the ‘religious’ sphere (including giving up pastoral or ‘religious’ academic appointments).
72 [February 1999 journal entry] Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Eberhard Bethge experienced and spoke of ‘friendship in the singular’ as distinct from the ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’ of traditional Lutheran theology (i.e., state, work, church, family). My definition/use of societal ‘spheres’ corresponds to some degree with the Lutheran definition/use of ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’. One difference is that I have more differentiated spheres in mind than represented in the Lutheran tradition – e.g., education, arts, medicine. Another difference would be the correspondence of my references to ‘spheres’ with existential references to ‘stages’ and to societal controls imposed on individuals. ‘Spheres’ constitute the infrastructure of a society. Such ‘spheres’ determine the rights, obligations, and prerequisites by/through which participants know who they are and how they should act. Bonhoeffer wondered if ‘freedom’ (with which he associated ‘friendship in the singular’) should be considered a ‘mandate’ or ‘order’. I wonder if ‘freedom’ (and, therefore, ‘friendship in the singular’) is possible only beyond ‘spheres’? I would propose that a societal ‘sphere’ can tolerate a limited/conditional ‘freedom’ (i.e., up to the point of threatening or challenging the ‘sphere’). I would also propose that the ‘freedom’ Bonhoeffer linked with ‘friendship in the singular’ (as well as with his ‘religionless Christianity’ and his last thoughts about ‘church’) is beyond, outside, and independent to all societal ‘spheres’.
73 [February 1999 journal entry] The ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am following requires that I retain/protect my independence while participating in the medical sphere. Doing so means (1) that I must always be willing to surrender any sense of place/privilege (i.e., I must not be seduced by offers of security), (2) that I must never be more than a guest (i.e., I must not seduced by the possibility of tenure), (3) that I must resist a ‘uniform’ look or manner/disposition.
74 [February 1999 journal entry] The following reflections came after a conversation with Eberhard and Renate Bethge late into the night during a recent visit with them in their home outside Bonn. (1) Some search for or seek out the ‘freedom’ and the resulting identity that are not predetermined by societal ‘spheres’. Others are forced to do so without desire for or valuing the task/search. Is one group more likely than the other to re-root themselves in ‘freedom’ and, therefore, in radical liberty from societal ‘spheres’? (2) The deeper the experience in and loyalty to a ‘sphere’, the more diminished ‘freedom’ becomes. It is critical to retain sufficient strength to be able to overcome the gravitational pull inward/back to the sphere’s center. Otherwise, the defining experience and character associated with ‘freedom’ are lost. Perhaps a core purpose of my low profile and ‘arcane’ gatherings on the margins of ‘spheres’ – e.g., the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings in New Orleans or the Bonhoeffer reading group here or our family’s dinner table talks, or . . . – are as much to protect my ability to exit from societal ‘spheres’ as it is to create a strategy to leaven them.
75 [February 1999 journal entry] Bonhoeffer anticipated/predicted in his prison letters to Bethge the demise/marginalization of ‘religion’ after World War I in Germany and other European nations. This demise/marginalization did not happen completely in any of these countries (e.g., to varying degrees in Holland, Germany, France; less so in Italy, Spain). ‘Religion’ survived in England and thrived in the United States after World War I. The point here is (1) not that a ‘non-religious’ alternative direction is invalid, but (2) that becoming thoroughly ‘non-religious’ requires turning away from the available safety/familiarity of ‘religion’ and develops with an overlapping of language (e.g., ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘love’, ‘evil’, . . .).
One part of any writing (for me, at least) re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics has to be an explanation of how long, laborious, and complicated it is to become thoroughly ‘non-religious’. This process for me has stretched from the seed ideas in the mid-1970s to the departure by 1991 from any official place/role in the ‘religious’ sphere. And then from 1992 forward, this process has involved finalizing the break while raising children. Much of my thought since 1992 has focused on interpreting the experience of becoming and remaining truly/meaningfully ‘non-religious’.
To be ‘non-religious’ (both in reference to the ‘religious’ sphere and to the ‘religious’ character of every societal sphere) is to be awkward within any societal sphere, to be a visitor or guest within any societal sphere, to be discontent within any societal sphere.
How likely is it that very many will dare to or be compelled to seek a ‘non-religious’ path? Does it require (1) traumatic exposure to ‘innocent suffering’? (2) a spontaneous/non-structured personality type? (3) a greater than average intellectual ability? (4) a classical education (including history and historical methodology)? (5) an advanced theological education? (6) . . . ? In a recent conversation with a close physician friend, he answered that such traits and more are required in order to cut through layer after layer of insulation separating ‘religion’ and ‘world’.
A ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’ entails the gathering/interaction of individuals each one of whom has leadership traits (1) because each one has experienced an individual/solitary passage to a ‘non-religious’ path and (2) because each one can maintain his/her spiritual journey alone if necessary. Are there any ‘followers’ (with a hierarchy of ‘leaders’ analogous to the ‘religious’ sphere) in a ‘non-religious’ community? I do not think so among those already on this path. What are the implications for parenting in a ‘non-religious’ manner?
76 [March 1999 journal entry] Must one have previously been ‘religious’ in order to be(come) ‘non-religious’? Bonhoeffer was. And I was. Is there a parallel to the necessity of being ‘modern’ in order to be ‘post-modern’?
