A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #178

[April 2005 journal entry]

My appreciation for the music training/experience I received in my youth (e.g., piano, trombone, baritone, trumpet, guitar) has grown steadily during my adult years. In recent years, I have arranged to be tutored in music theory/composition (which had been a minimal part of my music training). The reason – as the importance of photography has matured for me into my most valuable spiritual exercise over the last several years, my desire to catch the subtle as well as obvious indications of Dietrich’s being a pianist (i.e., being ‘musical’) in his life and thought has grown.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #177

[August 2004 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with Renate Bethge (Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s niece and his special friend Eberhard Bethge’s wife), we discussed an article that covered this year’s annual July 20 gathering in Berlin to honor the resistors involved with the 20 July 1944 attempt to bring Hitler and the Nazis down. The article quoted Prime Minister Schroeder’s comment that the resistors’ actions were “Christian and humanistic, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, and also Prussian”.

Renate and I discussed at length Schroeder’s reference to ‘Christian’. After reviewing Christianity’s (1) long history of anti-Semitism (with roots back into Christian scripture) and (2) submission to political authorities as divinely established/sanctioned (also with roots back into Christian scripture), we agreed that Schroeder’s use of ‘Christian’ could be misleading without careful and detailed nuancing. When I questioned whether any official creed or confession of faith explicitly/centrally/pivotally values matters of character and ethical responsibility (i.e., a Sermon on the Mount type creed or confession of faith) that would support action such as the Abwehr conspirators took, Renate could not think of an example (as I said I could not). She said several times, “You need to write one”. She recalled as having such form and tone the ‘I Have Time’ verse I wrote for my twin daughters when they were two years old –

I will have time . . .

To promote truth in all areas of inquiry.
To respect every human being’s dignity and worth.
To follow a lifestyle that eclipses neither God nor neighbor.
To measure myself and others by the content of character.
To care for the weak and powerless.
To encourage artistic imagination and expression.
To keep alive the vision of freedom, peace, and justice.
To maintain my integrity in all the seasons of life.
To wait patiently for the new heaven and the new earth.

And she recalled as having such form and tone the ‘To Live Life Well’ verse I wrote for my youngest daughter when she turned thirteen years of age --

To live life well –

Your cup, drink completely
Your faith, test existentially
Your love, release freely
Your joy, reveal tastefully
Your vision, pursue boldly

Your lifestyle, simplify radically
Your family, shelter vigilantly
Your friend, stand with unconditionally
Your neighbor, meet respectfully
Your vocation, embrace cheerfully

Your darkness, enter courageously
Your fears, confront vigorously
Your disappointments, weather patiently
Your wounds, tend silently
Your failures, see honestly

Your integrity, grip firmly
Your gifts, develop humbly
Your victories, celebrate gratefully
Your insights, remember clearly
Your path, mark carefully

We noted fragments of a ‘non-religious’ creed or confession of faith in Dietrich’s prison correspondence. With his ‘man for others’ language about ‘Jesus’ as a case in point, we discussed the incomplete (and heretical) nature of this language when measured by the historic creeds and confessions of faith.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #176

[August 2004 journal entry]

Re Dietrich’s December 1942 observation/proposition that “It remains an experience of unparalleled value that we have learned to see for once the great events of world history from below . . . .” – imagine a spectrum with “no value” at one end and “unparalleled value” at the opposite end. By assigning unparalleled or incomparable value, Dietrich took the step neither the Ecclesiastes author nor the ‘scrapheap’ Job took (at least in the canonical texts).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #175

[July 2003 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is analogous to an old tree that begins to show signs of dying (illustrate). The tree is not declared dead immediately and cut down. The tree carries too many memories. Adjustments are made. Allowances are made. Interventions are attempted to restore health or compensate for decay. However, as the signs of dying persist/increase, the tree’s significance begins to decrease. Birds build nests elsewhere. Shade is sought elsewhere. Swings are hung elsewhere. Play occurs elsewhere. At what point is the tree dead? Similarly, I agree with Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence assessment that ‘religion’ – the pre-modern T/O paradigm variations as well as variations on liberal ‘religion’ (e.g., from Schleiermacher to Harnack) – has been showing signs of being intellectually and existentially dead at least from the 17th-century forward. ‘Religion’ has not been cut down. In Germany (and Western Europe generally), ‘religion’ has steadily deteriorated and been marginalized. In the United States, ‘religion’ has weakened this society’s intellectual underpinnings and has distracted this society from existential accountability. Thus, neither radical (i.e., to the root) inquiry nor existential risk occurs in United States churches. It could be argued that, in Western Europe, ‘religion’ does not disturb society if/when the attempt is made to be ‘face to face with the world’ and, in the United States, ‘religion’ does not need to attempt to be ‘face to face with the world’ in order to survive.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #174

[July 2003 journal entry]

To take actions to change or control outcomes in life is to be ‘before God as if without God’ (at least in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm nuances for ‘God’). I think a central reason Dietrich turned to this phrase in his prison correspondence with Bethge was that he (Dietrich) and his fellow 20 July 1944 conspirators had crossed the threshold into taking action against Hitler that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm would leave to ‘God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #173

[July 2003 journal entry]

In his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay, Dietrich considered as “an incomparable value” his and his readers’ experience of ‘seeing from below’. If he had survived the war, would he have continued this “yes” to ‘seeing from below’ and thereby to all the inseparable “yeses” that would have necessarily/unavoidably followed? I have in mind here the opening lines to a Michel Quoist prayer (Prayers, p. 121)– “I am afraid of saying ‘yes’, Lord. Where will you take me? I am afraid of drawing the longer straw. I am afraid of signing my name to an unread agreement. I am afraid of the ‘yes’ that entails other ‘yeses’.” Is there any indication in the story/play Job that Job considers his ‘seeing from the scrapheap’ to be ‘an incomparable value’?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #172

[July 2003 journal entry]

If Dietrich had survived the war, how would he have responded to the Allies’ impatience to get an infrastructure in place using all available Germans other than the small fraction who had thoroughly embraced Hitler and Nazism. How would he have responded to the superficial ‘denazification’ process?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #171

[July 2003 journal entry]

A poem I recently wrote about my experience with ‘religion’ --

With Eyes Opened

I began my spiritual journey in a cozy old house.

I played happily.
I ate heartily.
I slept soundly.
I felt safe.

Then I learned about fires, thunderstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes.
And I learned about faulty electrical wiring, termites, deteriorating foundations.
I examined the cozy old house.
I discovered brittle insulation, rotten wood, cracked foundation blocks.

My play ceased.
My meals lost taste.
My sleep became restless.
I felt at risk.

I tried to repair the cozy old house.
I failed.
I could no longer play there . . . eat there . . . sleep there.
I felt sad.

I paused and then moved on with my spiritual journey . . . grateful to have been
disillusioned.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #170

[July 2003 journal entry]

While driving to work with our youngest daughter, we discussed the Nazi Holocaust section of her 8th-grade literature course. In addition to reading Anne Franke’s diary and Corrie ten Boom’s story, she was assigned to do some independent research on the concentration camps. We discussed the widespread anti-Semitism across Western Europe and in the United States as well as in Germany. We discussed the anti-Semitism that can be traced from Christianity’s beginnings into the 20th-century. Morgan asked whether and when most Germans knew about the horrors that occurred at the concentration camps. After talking about the everyday (often every hour) strains/decisions faced by Germans who saw clearly and who dared to resist, we considered the options available to those whose position of privilege and distance permitted them to minimize/avoid seeing/learning too much. They knew enough to attempt not to know more. When Morgan admitted that she often avoids reading or watching news or documentary reports of human suffering, I suggested that the many individuals around her with similar positions of privilege and distance as well as the many institutions/spheres (including ‘religion’) available to her will not seriously challenge her to do otherwise. We then looked at hints in the Synoptic Gospels that being with ‘Jesus’ would have meant to be constantly challenged to see more rather than less, to see all rather than a biased selection, to see ‘from below’ rather than ‘from above’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #169

[April 2003 journal entry]

During a breakfast conversation while visiting Berlin with Renate Bethge, I asked Renate when she noticed interest in Dietrich increasing after the war’s end. She pointed to the 1963 publication of John A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God and asked my thoughts as to the link. I described for her two competing and contrasting paradigms in the United States at that time – (1) a fundamentalist/nonscientific/‘religious’ paradigm that in the 1950s had considerable momentum and (2) a modern/scientific/secularizing paradigm that in the 1950s was beginning to show rapidly expanding breakthroughs, the results of which (along with the underlying information base) were trickling into public knowledge (in media and education) at a time when the US population was becoming less and less rural. We discussed what I understand to have been the core proposition of the Altizer, Hamilton, Vahanian, Cox, et al professional theologians who fueled a debate sensationalized by the 8 April 1966 Time issue with its ‘Is God Dead?’ cover and lead story – i.e., that the apparent vitality/momentum of fundamentalist/evangelical ‘religion’ in the United States distracted from the deeper reality that Sunday’s ‘God’ language was in fact ‘dead’ on Monday. I suspect these theologians assumed/expected that individuals when challenged (1) would want to live authentically ‘in the world’ and (2) would want to integrate Sunday and Monday. If so, they miscalculated on both counts. In the ‘religious’ sphere toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum, the ‘God is dead’ theologies/ians were dismissed (e.g., the God is not dead . . . I spoke to him last night bumper stickers). This dismissal was made easier by the fact that the theologians speaking of ‘God’ as dead were perceived as academic theologians rather than as pastors/ministers. ‘Religious’ leaders toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum who took seriously their ‘God is dead’ point risked losing many disturbed/insecure members to fundamentalist/evangelical churches by acting on such realization. Robinson’s Honest to God was jolting in at least two ways – (1) he was a churchman (though somewhat weakened as a influential witness to fundamentalists/evangelicals by being a liberal Anglican and at the end of his career) and (2) he referenced Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence (when Bonhoeffer was known in the United States ‘religious’ sphere primarily by his pre-1939 Confessing Church years/writings).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #168

[April 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich’s investment in the Confessing Church as a non-violent civil disobedience strategy depended on two key assumptions/anticipations – i.e., the expectation that the enemy/aggressor will be caused to pause (eventually responding to the strategy) and the ability of the resistors to remain resolute when injuries, deprivations, deaths begin to occur. By 1939 Dietrich saw that the strategy had failed on both counts. Unlike the British in India (where Dietrich tried to travel several times without success), the Nazis were in their homeland and had utter darkness at their core. The ranks of the Pastors’ Emergency League broke in 1937 when the Nazis confronted the Confessing Church after the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #92

[June 2003 journal entry]

The evidence that humans try to make “all things work together for good” is accessible and discernible. The evidence that ‘God’ (as nuanced within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) makes “all things work together for good” is not accessible and discernible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #91

[June 2003 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes monologue are my windows into Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. I draw back from texts/writers that/who add nothing re imagining the missing character in the story/play Job (i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him) and instead endorse the story/play’s fairytale epilogue. And ‘Jesus’? The Gospel writers (in spite of themselves, I suspect) permit imagining ‘Jesus’ as someone who sees ‘from below’ or ‘from the scrapheap’. His death is ‘innocent’, but is most immediately associated with social suffering (i.e., caught in a power struggle). Note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm casts his death as divinely willed, leaving as insignificant such considerations as a power struggle. An additional hermeneutic effort/step is required to associate his death with chronic illness victims.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #90

[June 2003 journal entry]

A ‘scrapheap’ has to do with more than the leftovers from one job to be used at the next job. A ‘scrapheap’ represents what is past recycling. Re social/collective ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor represents those so exploited that they are no longer of interest/value to the exploiters, so exploited that no ‘bounce’ remains. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? They are among social workers, public school teachers, et al. Re individual ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor has to do with those so devastated by (chronic) illness/conditions that they no longer have ‘life’. They are beyond the ‘scrapheap’ Job at his worst. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? Dr. Rieux-type physicians.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #89

[June 2003 journal entry]

The story/play Job as we have it in Jewish scripture allows the audience to leave thinking, “Ah, a comforting ending. All is well.” The story/play also more subtly invites those (few, I suspect) who see past/through the fairytale ending instead to embark on the journey beyond the story/play in search of the way of being and the ‘God’ language missing in the story/play (somewhat analogous to being invited to meet after the play at a nearby tavern to talk).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #88

[June 2003 journal entry]

My experience with the story/play Job in Jewish scripture is analogous to returning to a long-running Broadway play every week for more than thirty years. Changes/movements in my life over the past thirty years have altered how I have experienced the story/play Job. And the story/play Job has repeatedly altered my life. Different parts of the story/play Job have touched me at different times and in different ways – e.g., developing the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor or finding a way to engage the fairytale epilogue/ending (which I avoided for years by ‘leaving early’). Perhaps my notes on the story/play Job are similar to a travel guidebook. How is a travel guidebook (to be) used, given that the traveler will not be able to experience all the possibilities described in the book? My notes represent the accumulation of more than thirty years experience with the story/play Job. I cannot separate or easily/often distinguish what has accumulated from repeatedly returning to the story/play Job (as if each performance attended could have its own font in the notes). I am realizing that my reflections assume the reader will return to the story/play Job several times. Thus there are numerous promptings re special, specific, fresh ways to experience the story/play Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #87

[May 2003 journal entry]

It remains remarkable to me that so many individuals make very explicit and passionate appeals to divine providence in their personal experiences at the expense of so many others around them who are devastated. Perhaps there is an analogy with the way having a camera’s aperture wide open results in a very thin focal plane with the foreground/background blurred to the point that the details are no longer discernable. Why do individuals surrounded by devastation to others if not to themselves continue to trust/champion some variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re divine providence?

1. Is it because the paradigm satisfactorily accounts for their personal experiences and their closest acquaintances’ experiences? (In other words, the paradigm works for them enough of the time that they do not test the paradigm by taking into account the wider/deeper realities of human suffering.)
2. Is it because their reason/s for adopting the paradigm had nothing to do with testing the paradigm’s credibility against the depth/breadth of human misery?
3. Is it because separating from the paradigm would be too painful, too time-consuming, too difficult to explain, . . . ?
4. Is it because they are not attempting to be truly present with individuals experiencing the worst of life?
5. Is it because the paradigm does not permit or support its being radically (i.e., down into the root) tested? (Those who dare to do so are pressured to ‘repent’. There is something hauntingly akin to spouse abuse -- e.g., “At least he notices me”, “I’m to blame”, “I would not know how to live in any other situation”, “I can’t afford to leave”, . . .)
6. Is it because they are not looking for or wanting to struggle with such questions?
7. Is it because they place more value on other aspects of membership within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
8. Is it because they have made public statements and/or taken public actions of allegiance to the paradigm that would be difficult (embarrassing?) to reverse (analogous to having a ‘lifetime alumnus’ sticker on your car)?
9. Is it because of a desire for childlike comfort and liberty from accountability?
10. Is it because of texts in Jewish scripture and/or Christian scripture that discourage seriously questioning the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
11. Is it because of credentialed authorities (e.g., PhDs, faculty members, popular writers, pastors, . . .) who repeatedly reassure the adherents that the paradigm is sound and can be trusted? (These ‘religious’ authorities are analogous to a building inspector requested by a real estate agent because s/he can count on the building inspector’s certification of the property regardless of the items found to need correction. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects to be certified whenever these ‘religious’ authorities examine the paradigm.)
12. Is it because they fear being in ‘fog’ (i.e., ‘uncertainty’)?
13. Is it because they have taken pivotal actions (e.g., who/whether to marry, what profession to pursue, where to work, . . .) primarily (even solely) on the conviction that ‘God’ specifically willed such actions? (The fabric of these actions would begin to unravel if they step back/away from the paradigm.)
14. Is it because they are concerned not to appear disloyal to or critical of individuals they love and respect who remain unwavering in their allegiance to the paradigm?
15. Is it . . . ?

Fragment -- #220

[July 2003 journal entry]

I offered our twin daughters four landmarks when they left for college – i.e., (1) always be reading something elective, (2) always be creating something, (3) always be in a co-working situation, (4) always have a ‘K-Bar-B’ experience going. I would now add a fifth landmark – i.e., (5) always be taking care of someone’s garbage/waste.

Fragment -- #219

[July 2003 journal entry]

A close physician friend mentioned recently a comment made by a fellow resident near the end of their residencies re my friend’s efforts as chief resident to correct flaws in the system – “David, it doesn’t make a difference. When you are gone, it will be like pulling your finger out of water. No one will know you have been here or what you have tried to do.” I have thought several times about this premise that expending time and energy to ‘make a difference’ is futile and without significance. This premise is not without insight. Infrastructures are especially resistant to change. And most of the ways we benevolently touch another’s life go unnoticed. This premise also raises the important question of motive (i.e., the importance placed on being noticed/recognized). Still, the analogy proposed in this premise breaks down at least slightly in that the finger stuck into the water leaves something – however difficult to trace/identify -- in the water.

Fragment -- #218

[July 2003 journal entry]

Today I watched a skit performed by the Vacation Bible School kids at Harpeth Presbyterian Church (USA) around the story of ‘Jesus’ and Peter walking on the surface of the sea. The theme song for the skit had the refrain – “I can do all things – even walk on the sea – through Jesus Christ who strengthens me”. What did the kids think this statement meant? What did their teachers think it meant? Had there been any discussion that would keep the kids from going to a lake or swimming pool and trying to walk on water?

Fragment -- #217

[July 2003 journal entry]

An ex nihilo beginning to the natural order is widely taken for granted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. This view – which, in my opinion, is not self-evident – is linked with the premise also widespread within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that all events (including all human experiences) are willed by ‘God’. Liturgies, hymns, prayers, and sermons reinforce this link. This view marginalizes/devalues all other possibly explanatory variables – including human freedom – when interpreting natural events. I see Jewish thought in antiquity as neither rooted in an ex nihilo view nor (in contrast with Egyptian, Persian, or Hellenistic cultures) given to extensive metaphysical theorizing. This lack of metaphysical theorizing is especially evident in Genesis’ second creation story with its gardener working the soil metaphor and its potter working with clay metaphor for ‘God’ bringing design out of formlessness. Other nuances in these variables present in such metaphors (e.g., quality of soil, amount of rain, grazing of animals, . . . or windblown sand, low humidity, children playing too close to the potter’s spinning wheel, . . .) need not be marginalized as more recently recognized variables (e.g., regularities in nature, randomness, human freedom/choice, . . .) need not be (and are not, in a ‘non-religious’ approach) marginalized.

Fragment -- #216

[April 2003 journal entry]

It is serious/profound to say to another – “Step here. The ground is firm.” (The ‘ground’ metaphor could be replaced by ‘ice’, ‘wood’, . . .). Decisions/actions imply such counsel. Virtually all individuals – when I observe them in the routines/schedules of the day and especially when I listen to them in conversation – look and sound as if they are confident about the paradigm reflected in and implied by their decisions, their actions, their reactions. I have thought about this recurring observation often over the years. Very few individuals seem cautious, questioning, testing. They instead seem to stride through their lives. This impression has contributed directly/significantly to my reticence to do more than suggest radical (i.e., ‘to the root’) paradigm examination to those with whom I am acquainted. I am, however, always ready to participate in such radical examination with those who indicate a need and longing to do so.

Fragment -- #215

[June 2006 journal entry]

I feel more keenly/painfully than ever an identification with Koheleth as he wrestled with being aware of the human misery just beyond the edges of his affluence. Where -- across a spectrum with one end being ‘utter misery’ and the other end being ‘utter affluence’ -- is the lifestyle that does not necessitate colonizing, exploiting, oppressing, impoverishing? where none would have reason to say, “I would not live my life over”? The standard of living experienced or sought by so many in the United States is far toward the ‘utter affluence’ end of the spectrum. A serious move toward the point of a just lifestyle on the spectrum is hard and complicated. Is it possible? . . . I must resist the enticements/sanctions – social, professional, religious – to turn away from seeing, to be distracted, to try to forget. I still see Koheleth tormented, paralyzed, frustrated, disillusioned by his awareness of the human misery just beyond the edge of his affluence. I still wonder if the author found a way to stay focused on ‘life under the sun’ after he wrote Ecclesiastes. I still consider my 1992-present journal entries to be an interpretation of one attempt to remain ‘with the world face to face’. I still place ‘unparalleled value’ on seeing ‘from below’. I still hesitate to claim that I see clearly ‘from below’.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #50

[July 2003 journal entry]
“I’m beginning to feel again an excitement about being a physician” – a mid-40s Johns Hopkins Ob/Gyn Department faculty member (with a specialization in the gynecological care of HIV+ women) during a dinner conversation after I had given the department’s Thomas Elkins Memorial Lecture.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #49

[May 2001 journal entry]
My daughters have often asked me how they should explain to others my work with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians. Over the years, I have offered them a variety of metaphors (e.g., the prompter in theatre, the mudder in interior wall construction, the leaven in baking, . . .). A few days ago, Morgan asked, “Dad, how should I answer when my friends ask -- ‘Morgan, what does your dad do?’” A new metaphor came to mind. I responded, “Just tell them I am an irrigation ditch.” By the end of our conversation about this metaphor, she seemed to understand. Since the early 1980s, I have been privileged to work closely with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians who remain resolved to be humane toward their patients and to exercise a strong social conscience in the practice of medicine. Their resolve places them in the barren regions of the medical education and medical practice environments.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #167

[April 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich invested in the Confessing Church as a non-violent civil disobedience strategy and was deeply disappointed when the strategy failed. The credibility of such a resistance strategy depends on two key assumptions/anticipations – i.e., the expectation that the enemy/aggressor will be caused to pause (eventually responding to the strategy) and the ability of the resistors to remain resolute when injuries, deprivations, deaths begin to occur. By 1939 Dietrich saw that the strategy had failed on both counts. Unlike the British in India, the Nazis were in their homeland and had a deep/dark core. The ranks of the Pastors’ Emergency League broke in 1937 when the Nazis brutally confronted the Confessing Church after the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #166

[April 2003 journal entry]

I have pondered for some time how young Confessing Church pastors trained by Bonhoeffer at Finkenwalde would have conducted confirmation instruction for the youth in their congregations during the Nazi years. What would have been Bonhoeffer’s counsel if/when students asked for guidance? I suspect a spectrum existed among Confessing Church pastors – i.e., with an approach that would have blurred the distinctions with the confirmation experience of ‘German Christian’ youth at one end of the spectrum and with close/clear transposition of Cost of Discipleship instruction for Confessing Church youth at the opposite end of the spectrum.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #165

[February 2003 journal entry]

At least since the mid-1990s, photography has contributed substantively to my ‘non-religious’ experience of and approach to spirituality and ethics. (Music, elective reading, and most recently sketching have somewhat similar importance.) Beyond being a source of relief, photography refreshes (recalibrates, refocuses, replenishes) my attentiveness to the details in everyday situations and my instinct to anticipate (look for) composition in everyday situations. Photography quickens my ability and readiness to be truly/fully present.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #164

[January 2003 journal entry]

Virtually all who strive to live life deeply/genuinely respectful of others (esp., those who live in life’s darkest shadows) are eventually ‘leaven’ – i.e., they are hardly noticed influences on temporal realities and on history. The number of individuals who know about their leavening and the radius within which notice occurs are both limited. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm offers divine notice and ultimate/eternal reward, thus anticipating an eventual separating of the ‘leaven’ from ‘the bread’. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics is content with the incognito of ‘leaven’ and does not yearn for an eventual separating of the ‘leaven’ from ‘the bread’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #163

[January 2003 journal entry]

The Matthew 25:31-46 story has been pivotal for my decision to align with ‘the second commandment’ (i.e., love your neighbor as yourself) as I wrestle with the complexities/limitations I find inseparable from understanding or experiencing ‘the first commandment’ (i.e., love ‘God’ with all your . . .). The Matthew 25:31-46 story supports this reverse ordering of these two ‘commandments’. The story can easily (and ironically, I think) be read through the perspective of the ‘goats’ in the story – i.e., with the readers/interpreters concluding, “Let us, therefore, serve ‘the least of these’ because in doing so we are serving ‘God’.” The ‘goats’ in the story beg for a second chance to do just that. The ‘sheep’ in the story are commended because their motive for caring for ‘the least of these’ is free from such self-serving, from such self-promoting, from such ‘means to the end of strengthening my case in judgment’ objectives. The ‘sheep’ in the story care for ‘the least of these’ in a pure and unconditional sense. If I had stayed on the ‘religious’ path of having to settle ‘the first commandment’ issues as a prerequisite for participating in ‘the second commandment’ ethic, I would either have given up the further inquiry re ‘the first commandment’ I already knew had to be pursued to maintain intellectual integrity or I would have neglected my responsibilities as a spouse, as a parent, as a neighbor. Stepping instead directly into ‘the second commandment’ responsibilities actually liberated and energized my continued inquiry into ‘the first commandment’ questions. Doing so also necessitated a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ rationale for seeking to be the sort of person who sees and cares deeply for ‘the least of these’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #162

[December 2002 journal entry]

I spoke recently with a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend about Countee Cullen’s poem The Incident –

The Incident

Once riding in old Baltimore
Heart-filled, head-filled with glee,
I saw a Baltimorean
Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,
And he was no whit bigger,
And so I smiled, but he poked out
His tongue, and called me, ‘Nigger’.

I saw the whole of Baltimore
From May until December,
Of all the things that happened there
That’s all that I remember.

Countee Cullen (1903-46) was raised in New York City by his grandmother and then by F. A. Cullen, the pastor of the largest African-American Methodist Church in the city. Cullen was raised in privilege re both culture and education (including New York University and Harvard). Cullen sought recognition for his poetry beyond his being considered a leading African-American poet. He turned down numerous professorships at the peak of his reputation in the 1920s. He subsequently taught in the New York City public schools.

My pastor/friend was preparing to facilitate a discussion of the poem with his congregation. I encouraged him to imagine the church experiences the three characters in the poem might have had – i.e., (1) the child harshly labeled, (2) the ‘Baltimorean’ child, and (3) a child sitting near enough to have observed and overheard this incident. What is ‘the gospel’ in each child’s church? I suggested that the word ‘religion’ should be approached as one of those words for which a dictionary lists several meanings in a descending order. I would make the nuances Bonhoeffer gave ‘religion’ and the nuances I have added to his in these journal entries the first/common meanings in the list of meanings.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #161

[November 2002 journal entry]

Being radically (i.e., without restriction or discrimination) open to ‘from below’ inquiry and to ‘from below’ consciousness of the depth/breadth of human suffering is essential to a ‘non-religious’ path re spirituality and ethics. Most expressions of Christianity in the United States are located toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the spectrum and, therefore, are separate from as well as antagonistic toward these ‘from below’ positions/perspectives. Fundamentalist traditions/groups are sealed/airtight against radical inquiry and radical consciousness of human suffering. Evangelical traditions/groups are closed but not sealed/airtight, careful to stop short of either radical inquiry or radical consciousness of human suffering that would threaten the evangelical theological paradigm. The remaining expressions of Christianity in the United States are located toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Liberal traditions/groups are open optimistically to radical inquiry, but do not strain to be radically conscious of the depth/breadth of human suffering. The authentic expressions of Christianity in the United States I have found re these ‘from below’ perspectives/positions are among the Quakers and among isolated/marginalized individuals within liberal traditions/groups.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #160

[September 2002 journal entry]

During a conversation with Renate Bethge (Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s niece), she asked about an observation in one of my letters to her – i.e., that “I am a historian first, a theologian second”. I began my explanation with a 1974 exchange with a fellow graduate student re how to approach and handle research into the critical scholarship about Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. The student said he intended to take seriously only research results that supported his already established and uncritical view of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as ‘inspired’. I said my approach would be the reverse. I have never knowingly veered from the approach with which I aligned myself in that conversation. I explained to Renate that in time I concluded I could not maintain ‘a historian first, a theologian second’ approach within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere. We then spent most of our time associating the ‘historian first, theologian second’ position with my subsequent interaction with the beginnings of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics in Dietrich’s prison letters.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #159

[August 2002 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ interpretation of a text gives special attention to characters who are criticized, who are not affirmed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #158

[August 2002 journal entry]

Paradox – To be aligned by choice ‘from below’ with the marginalized and disenfranchised is often to be distant from those who are sensitive to language’s limitations and who are articulate re a scientific worldview.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #157

[May 2002 journal entry]

I was recently asked how – in 1973? in 1979? in 1987? in 1992? – I would have read my journal entries. The question made me wonder. Given my response to Bonhoeffer’s prison letters when I first read them in 1975/76 and my response to a widening exposure to the history of ideas during the years in question, I think I would have responded with considerable interest and openness.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #156

[March 2002 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘community’ I am experiencing is descriptive of my sorting and prioritizing relationships as the following experiences unfolded in a simultaneous and interweaved manner during the 1970s/80s – (1) being with my first wife over the course of her disease and death (d. 1987), (2) struggling with tensions in my association – as a historian and as a theologian – within the theologically and socially/politically conservative Christian denomination into which I was born, (3) stepping into a steadily widening range of opportunities within the medical education/practice sphere. Until several years into my thirteen-year tenure as a history and theology professor (1979-1992), I continued to look for vitality in a ‘religious’ understanding of ‘community’. Analogous to the decision to withdraw artificial/intensive life-support technologies, I eventually concluded that the effort was futile, given my irreversible and no longer negotiable decisions (1) to engage in unrestricted historical inquiry, (2) to be as closely aligned as possible with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering without regard to my existential and theological costs, (3) to be as fully present as possible within the medical education/practice sphere with health care professionals who are committed to the same alignment without my having prior knowledge of their religious or philosophical convictions. I realized that my experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere had been dying for some time. Analogous to a boat crushed in a storm, my experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere had proved to lack integrity as I moved further and further into face to face (rather than ‘religiously’ filtered) engagement with the world’s ‘marketplaces’ and ‘wildernesses’. In this ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘community’, the first-order and primary experience of ‘community’ is the resolve to initiate ‘community’ in every encounter, with particular attention to encounters with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering. All other experiences of ‘community’ are valued as secondary means to sustain the first-order and primary experience of ‘community’. I do not know of ‘religious’ congregations that have in their origin and as their reason for existing this unconditional alignment with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering. One reason I persist in testing my thought in these journal entries – far beyond the expectation of anyone with whom I have been or am associated – is the desire to be consistent in my conversations that occur across the primary and secondary experiences of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #155

[February 2002 journal entry]

I continue to think about the correlations on the one hand of ‘religion’ and the ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and on the other hand the ‘Santa’ traditions/experience – e.g., (1) the naïve, simple, and innocent ‘Santa’ belief of a six-year-old, (2) a confident 2^nd-grader who defends ‘Santa’ belief in reaction to the suspicions of another student, (3) the first serious questions about the illogic of the ‘Santa’ story, (5) a 3^rd-grader’s more frantic and haunted attempts to defend ‘Santa’ belief.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #154

[February 2002 journal entry]

Bonhoeffer’s prediction that ‘religion’ in European countries generally and in Germany specifically would die and/or become increasingly irrelevant/marginalized proved true. Reasons a similar diminishment did not occur re ‘religion’ in the United States would include – (1) the evolution of ‘religion’ into a business with a sustainable market (e.g., church construction, profitable publishing, the mega-church phenomenon, the ‘Christian music’ industry, TV evangelists, . . .), (2) accredited private and independent ‘religious’ colleges, (3) no recent tragedies on United States soil on the magnitude of the Civil War, the world wars, and the Nazi holocaust, (4) the economic and educational legacy of slavery, (5) widespread indifference toward rigorous examination of ideas, (6) . . . .

Fragment -- #214

[April 2003 journal entry]

Being conscious, aware, engaged, present in an open and concrete manner is not a given, a once for all. I must fight for it every day, every hour. There is much resistance. There are many distractions.

Fragment -- #213

[February 2003 journal entry]

It seems that radical (i.e., to the root) cultural/global change now occurs so rapidly that what one person (generation?) settles on, after vigorous/careful examination/testing, as firm existential footing for decision-making is by that point already too out of date to be quickly/easily relevant to the new ‘present’ being faced.

Fragment -- #212

[February 2003 journal entry]

Christian congregations across the spectrum from fundamentalist to liberal expect sermons, regardless of the starting point or line of reasoning, to conclude with an affirmation of some theological variation consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #211

[January 2003 journal entry]

To ‘counter’ culture, one must first and persistently ‘encounter’ culture.

Fragment -- #210

[December 2002 journal entry]

If ‘sin’ is missing the mark/target, then the identity of the mark/target is of utmost importance.

Fragment -- #209

[October 2002 journal entry]

We recently enjoyed having my artist friend Dean as our houseguest for a few days. In one conversation, Dean asked why western cultures appear to have drifted/declined into decadence (as he considered an audio-book at Borders that argued this thesis). I responded, “Information overload.” We had a very stimulating conversation about the consequences of having too much information to be able effectively to organize information into a construct or paradigm. Since that conversation, I have been considering the association of ‘cadence’ with ‘decadence’.

Fragment -- #208

[July 2002 journal entry]

A Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend asked what place ‘resurrection’ has in my ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. I began with -- “‘Resurrection’ is not weight-bearing.” I told him I am open to ‘resurrection’, but do not know of a way to conceive of or meditate on ‘resurrection’ that does not slip into literal language. He then asked what place ‘myth’ has. I admitted considerable reservation due to the widespread literal use of such, meaning that what he was calling ‘myth’ is rarely treated as ‘myth’ (even in liberal churches where the word ‘myth’ is permitted). Were ‘myths’ conceived/transmitted in pre-modern/pre-scientific settings understood then to be ‘myths’? Given the widespread understanding of such as literally true within the ‘religious’ sphere (with corresponding opposition to considering such as ‘myth’) in our modern/scientific time, it seems unlikely.

Fragment -- #207

[July 2002 journal entry]

From It’s a Wonderful Life – “Is he sick?” “No. Much worse. He is discouraged.”

Fragment -- #206

[July 2002 journal entry]

Today I happened to catch a segment of a Discovery Channel program about Bobby, a dog whose master had died and been buried at Grey Friars in England in 1858. Bobby walked in the funeral procession and kept vigil at the grave for the next fourteen years (fed by neighbors) before he died.

Fragment -- #205

[July 2002 journal entry]

Today I watched a Robin trying to make a companion Robin lying in the middle of Hillsboro Road move after it had been hit by a car.

Fragment -- #204

[June 2002 journal entry]

I am beginning to notice times when I feel tired, old, passed by.

Fragment -- #203

[May 2002 journal entry]

While reading again Martin Buber’s autobiographical fragments titled Meetings, I began making a list of ‘meetings’ in my experience that similarly endure in my memory – for instance,

• Swiping grapes (and eventually being caught by my mother) as a young boy from the A&P grocery store (managed by my parent’s close friend and my close friend’s father) (early 1960s)
• Ralph Constantine and ‘Showboat’ – my first black-skinned friends growing up (1960s)
• When I as a child would hang my head out the back window of the car to make clear my disgust with the odor of a lady we would pick up for church services (a haunting failure to ‘meet’) (early 1960s)
• The day in Latin I class when tears flowed down my cheeks as I accepted silently the reality that childhood naïveté/innocence was behind me (1964)
• Seeing a speaker I admired pinned against the foyer wall by adversaries after having given a presentation on loving those with whom we disagree (1970)
• Listening to two faculty members at a religiously fundamentalist college supported by my tradition of birth reassure a hostile crowd of constituents that after completing their doctoral programs to satisfy accrediting standards they would think/teach exactly as they did when they began their doctoral programs (1973)
• The exchange with a fellow graduate student re what to do with the results of research into critical historical scholarship (1974)
• The return from the parking lot to a place to sit on the southern edge of the Grand Canyon -- after a hurried late afternoon of picture-taking -- for the purpose of experiencing the Grand Canyon, of being there, and then noticing several other individuals silently coming one by one to sit together in ‘community’ (mid-1975)
• My first plane ride (single engine plane to Chicago in a wintry ice storm) (1974)
• Walking into what remains of Dachau Concentration Camp alone (1976)
• My first meeting and subsequent friendship with my doctoral supervisor Glenn Hinson (1976)
• Writing tutorials for Father Cyprian Davis (St. Meinrad Monastery/Seminary) (1977-78)
• Writing tutorials for Professor Barrington White at Oxford University (1978-79)
• Meeting with the Quaker community in Oxford (1979)
• My first meeting with the multiple sclerosis support group in Memphis (1980)
• Visiting a Memphis friend who was a hemophiliac dying of AIDS (early 1980s)
• The conversation my first wife and I agreed to consider our last conversation -- a conversation just a few weeks before multiple sclerosis so compromised her clarity of thought for the remainder of her life (d. 1987) that I was uncertain if she knew any longer who I was (1984)
• My first meeting and subsequent friendship/collaboration with each of the circle of physicians with whom it has been my privilege to collaborate in the promotion of a humane practice of medicine with a resolute social conscience (1980 forward)
• When the Ob/Gyn Department chair at the University of Michigan and editorial board member for Obstetrics and Gynecology covered in red ink and then routed back to us via the department secretaries a manuscript Dr. Elkins and I had prepared for publication, insuring that his critical review was known and that the thickness of our skin would be tested (1989)
• Hearing Eli Wiesel speak at Temple Israel in Memphis (late 1980s)
• Monthly meetings with UT Memphis medical students (1990-92)
• Pierre Materne and family on the train from Paris to Brugge (1993)
• The initial meeting and subsequent friendship with the Eberhard and Renate Bethge (1993)
• Walking through ‘Dirt City’ in Miami (cardboard boxes and shanties under an interstate where desperately poor individuals/families lived) (1993-97)
• Weekly discussions with the abused kids being sheltered at K-Bar-B Youth Ranch (1995-97)
• Meetings at O’Reilly’s with the LSU Ob/Gyn faculty members re “Who cares?” (1995-97)
• Our family’s ‘Table Round’ conversations (1995-2000)
• Conversations in Jellico with an early-60s engineer dying of cancer and struggling with disappointment and humiliation re he had lived his life (1998)
• The first meeting and subsequent friendship with my artist friend Dean (2000)
• Seeing poverty-stricken little children in Athens selling bananas at traffic lights . . . seeing hundreds of fugitive men in Athens crowding into a room for a free dinner (2001)

As I read Buber’s Meetings, I recalled our daughters’ humorous but insightful response – “He meets” – when they are asked, “What does your dad do?”

What is the etymology of ‘meet’? What constitutes a ‘meeting’? What criteria should be used?

Fragment -- #202

[May 2002 journal entry]

For the past several weeks, I have substituted for a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend in facilitating a discussion group he has been leading on ‘Being Presbyterian (USA) in the Bible-Belt’. The participants represent a wide variety of denominational experiences. I have introduced the following interpretations for discussion:

The TULIP acronym. The participants’ first guesses re this acronym included such ideas as Love, Tolerance, Unity, . . . I had to identify and explain each letter/concept – i.e., Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. I traced the history of this theological ‘line in the sand’ to the Synod of Dort (1618-19) and the Westminster Assembly (1643-48) (from which came the Westminster Confession). I then related the adoption of TULIP theology to the history/interests of the Presbyterian tradition, explaining that the underlying assumptions of TULIP theology include (1) a pre-modern/pre-scientific worldview and (2) absolute/comprehensive divine sovereignty. We discussed such consequences of TULIP theology as (1) a desperately low view of human nature, (2) a deep suspicion of human inquiry/questioning, (3) an indifference to and devaluing of the present, (4) a preoccupation with an otherworldly existence, (5) . . . . Using the ‘seeds’ metaphor and filling in a timeline of seminal thinkers/events beginning in the 1100s, I pointed the participants to the revolutionary ideas that took root in education, politics, economics, history, art, literature, science, philosophy, theology. I proposed that the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly represented attempts by the dominant voices at those meetings to (from their perspective) weed the garden before losing the garden to the weeds. I pointed out that other Protestant traditions as well as the Roman Catholic tradition acted in similarly obstructionist ways. As we continued to fill out the timeline to the present, the participants saw clearly that they live (and, to varying degrees, think) in tension/conflict with the stances taken at Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. I then turned the participants’ attention to a core challenge to the TULIP theological paradigm that surfaced in the aftermath of the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly – i.e., the concept/problem of ‘innocent’ suffering (noting that the realities of human suffering were not new but the ‘innocent’ interpretation of such suffering was new).

Fragment -- #201

[April 2002 journal entry]

I have been reshaped by crossing several thresholds – e.g., (1) from my rural upbringing’s pre-modern way of seeing ‘the world’ and human experience to a modern/scientific way of seeing ‘the world’ and human experience, (2) from a 200-mile radius around home to a global scope re my awareness of ‘the world’, (3) from manual typewriting to word processing, (4) from an uninformed and unexamined colonizing view of United Stated foreign policy toward Africa, South America, Asia to a ‘liberation theology’ critique of United States foreign policy, (5) from segregation to non-segregation, (6) from blue collar to white collar, (7) from the era of two superpowers to the era of one superpower, (8) from pre-Vietnam to post-Vietnam, (9) from pre-Watergate to post-Watergate, (10) from pre-‘9 11’ to post-‘9 11’, (11) . . . .

Fragment -- #200

[March 2002 journal entry]

While watching Ken Burns’ History of Jazz documentary, jazz legend Artie Shaw’s comments gave me a fresh way to think about the risks associated with being welcomed, being considered ‘successful’, being celebrated within societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) --

“Glenn Miller? He had what you would call a Republican band. Very straight-laced and middle-of-the-road. And Miller was that kind of guy. He was a businessman. He was sort of the Lawrence Welk of jazz. That’s one of the reasons he was so big. People could identify with what he did. They could perceive what he was doing. But the biggest problem with his band was that it never made a mistake. And that’s one of the things that’s wrong. Because if you never make a mistake, you’re not trying. You’re not playing at the edge of your ability. You’re playing safely, within limits. You know what you can do. And after a while, it sounds extremely boring. . . . Success is a very big problem, bigger than failure. You can deal with failure. It’s tough. It’s hard. You fight like hell to get it going. But success is an opiate. And you get very confused. Things happen that you have no preparation for. Money comes in. And popularity. People throw themselves at you. I couldn’t handle it. I didn’t know what to do with it.”

Fragment -- #199

[May 2006 journal entry]

(1) The need/challenge -- beyond realizing the grim realities ‘under the sun’ -- to feel the angst Koheleth expresses for such grim realities (e.g., the ‘grievously wrong’, ‘crooked’, ‘tragic’, . . . references in Ecclesiastes) is most important. In other words, something analogous to Kierkegaard’s appeal to being dizzy or, even more profound, to being nauseated by the grim realities ‘under the sun’ must be felt. Reaching this level of agreement/resonance with Koheleth is all but impossible in a conference/seminar room with a group of individuals who do not know each other very intimately, knowing most of them probably do not yet feel so deeply about the grim realities ‘under the sun’, knowing they cannot simply be told to feel this angst. (2) The distinguishable nuances/meanings for ‘joy’ found/experienced across the continuum from being unaware of to denying to remembering the grim realities ‘under the sun’ need to be clearly developed. This again is a very daunting objective in the context of a conference/seminar room, in large part because doing so presupposes the depth of angst referenced above. (3) For me, the ‘God’ language in Ecclesiastes must be rigorously critiqued. I think the author remains very pre-scientific and pre-modern re ‘God’ language. In other words, I would propose that the author of Ecclesiastes effectively exposes some serious flaws in the prevailing theological paradigm in his/her society, but does not dig far enough into the language problem from which such idolatry continues to develop in ‘religion’.

Fragment -- #198

[January 2002 journal entry]

When I first saw the Francis of Assisi film Brother Sun, Sister Moon, I could empathize with Francis’ inability – short of violating his integrity – to satisfy his father’s deathbed entreaties to leave his witness to a radically simplified life and return to his father’s business/fortune. When I first read the agonizing letters Adolph Harnack exchanged with his father – a respected 19^th-century conservative theologian/churchman – re Adolph’s critical historical interpretations and his liberal theological proposals, I could empathize with his/their pain.

Fragment -- #197

[January 2002 journal entry]

I value and enjoy four types of music – i.e., classical (esp., Shostakovich, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky), 60s (esp., Chicago, Blood Sweat and Tears, The Beatles, Three Dog Night, Mammas and Pappas), jazz (esp., Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson, Marian McPartland, Diane Schuur), blues (esp., B. B. King, Aretha Franklin, Albert King, Billie Holliday, Eric Clapton, Keb Mo’, Norah Jones). (If I were to pick a ‘religious’ musician, it would be Rich Mullins.) Each genre has deep links with my ‘non-religious’ experience/views – e.g., classical puts me in awe of the artistic potential of the human geist and symbolizes hope for order/symmetry to triumph over chaos, 60s provides a wide-open forum from a revolutionizing decade, jazz illustrates the attempt to integrate individuality and community, blues breaks through from beneath the societal glitter.