The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #65

[October 1999 journal entry]

The reality of the breadth/depth of human suffering/misery does not have to be explained, but must (for me, at least) be the place/perspective from which to consider or propose ‘truth’ statements. This place/perspective is not (for me, at least) negotiable

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #64

[October 1999 journal entry]

Could the “Curse God and die” admonition from Job’s wife be read as an admonition to die to ‘religion’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #63

[October 1999 journal entry]

Can ‘God’ as conceived in the prologue, epilogue, and whirlwind sections of the story/play Job be found/seen in the concept/s of ‘God’ attributed to ‘Jesus’ in the Synoptic Gospels?

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #28

[November 1999 journal entry]

Reflections during a senior Presbyterian USA pastor’s sermon based on the story about ‘Jesus’ healing ten lepers (thinking of the story as drama) --

1. I began wondering if the Samaritan in the story has a priest to whom to go. In other words, perhaps in the initial reaction, he rushes away with the others and then remembers how he will be received as a Samaritan. Or perhaps the other nine lepers remind the Samaritan of this reality by their reactions to him if not by their words.
2. Had the shared plight of leprosy trumped their ethnic/religious prejudices and divisions when being lepers brought them together, resulting in a ‘community’ experience that had included the Samaritan? How soon after being freed from leprosy do ethnic/religious prejudices and divisions begin to erode their ‘community’ experience?
3. Is it better/preferred for someone previously ‘untouchable’ to return to membership in segregated and discriminating societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere)? In going to a priest, are the lepers in the story moving further and further from the experience of ‘community’ to which the actions/words of ‘Jesus’ point?
4. I found myself wondering if the pastor diminished the force of ‘leprosy’ when he began his sermon with the stated assumption that everyone in his audience could “climb into the story”. Individuals can have needs/wounds and still retain their place in societal spheres (‘religious’ and otherwise). They are not necessarily outcasts or on the margins, having lost their place in societal spheres. They are not necessarily ‘lepers’.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #27

[October 1999 journal entry] Possible ‘from below’ texts in the Synoptic Gospels’ representations of ‘Jesus’:

1. the sheep and goats story (Matthew 25:31-46),
2. indications that ‘religion’ and ‘religious’ leaders were central contributors to the death of ‘Jesus’,
3. the ‘destroy the temple’ comments attributed to him,
4. the teaching attributed to him about the ‘two centering commandments’,
5. his reaction to those considered ‘unclean’,
6. the ‘rich ruler’ story,
7. his touching lepers. Re the latter – What would have been the ‘gospel of Jesus’ if ‘Jesus’ did not touch and in other ways respect lepers? Can the move be made from any one such instance to a judgment re the sort of person ‘Jesus’ should be seen to be?

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #26

[August 1999 journal entry]

I was recently asked whether a person raised separate from and outside the ‘religious’ sphere would have reason/motive/method by which to take ‘Jesus’ seriously and study his life/thought apart from the interpretations sanctioned by the ‘religious’ sphere. I suggested that the ‘religious’ sphere has been and is a barrier to such a search. The legacy, reputation, and manner of the ‘religious’ sphere discredit ‘Jesus’ (as interpreted by the ‘religious’ sphere). It would be possible if the individual my friend has in mind encounters someone who has existential as well as intellectual credibility, who points to ‘Jesus’ without placing ‘Jesus’ inside the ‘religious’ sphere, and who has some sophistication in historical research.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #83

[May 1999 journal entry]

Withdrawing from paradigm-trusting and loyal presence/participation in societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) is necessary/prerequisite

1. to being aligned, associated, and truly present with the vulnerable, powerless, chronically ill, easily forgotten and
   
2. to being an encourager/prompter for those who choose to be independent enough from societal spheres to respect/serve such individuals.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #82

[April 1999 journal entry]

Among the variables that contribute to an accounting for my break/withdrawal from the ‘religious’ sphere/paradigm are:

1. not being deeply (i.e., to the point of being unable to resist or to break free) marked/stamped by my fundamentalist upbringing in the ‘religious’ sphere,
   
   
2. having an early defining life experience with the depth/breadth of human suffering – for me, my first wife’s illness/death – that came before prolonged investment in the ‘religious’ sphere and that did not come after my undergraduate and graduate education,
   
   
3. having doctoral training in historical methodology, philosophy, antiquities, 17th century history, 19th century history, 20th century history,
   
   
4. having graduate teaching experience in spirituality, ethics, history, systematic theology, philosophy of religion.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #81

[April 1999 journal entry]

For me, it is incredible (i.e., not credible) to say “God is in control” (as is commonly/routinely asserted within the ‘religious’ sphere and is fundamental/essential to the T/O paradigm). To say “God is in control” is to imply –

1. that ‘God’ is the ultimate (source of) human suffering, or
   
   
2. that events/experiences of tragic human suffering are not truly (in fact) tragic, or
   
   
3. that the individuals who say “God is in control” have not truly seen (or are kept from truly seeing by T/O paradigm theology) the breadth/depth of human suffering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #80

[April 1999 journal entry]

As I have become increasingly/irreversibly ‘non-religious’, some concepts/vocabulary from my ‘religious’ heritage have been reborn with radically (i.e., to the root) new meaning (e.g., for me – ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘grace’, ‘faith’, ‘prayer’, ‘time’, . . .). But other concepts/vocabulary from my ‘religious’ heritage remain dead (e.g., for me – ‘lord’, ‘kingdom’, ‘heaven’, ‘hell’, ‘sheep’, ‘shepherd’, ‘follower’, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #79

[April 1999 journal entry]

Among my goals for our children re a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality are the following.

1. I am realizing that to sustain one’s self spiritually outside the ‘religious’ sphere necessitates traits, experiences, and skills that our children may (or may not) have -- e.g., spontaneous and intuitive personality; familiarity and facility with history, theology, philosophy; core/radical differences with the assumptions of the ‘religious’ sphere; core/radical identification with the disadvantaged, vulnerable, ‘poor’; . . . .
   
   
2. I am trying to make known to our children that ‘Jesus’ is/must be distinguished from ‘religion’ (and the interpretations of ‘Jesus’ within the ‘religious’ sphere).
   
   
3. I hope to pass on to our children an example of experiencing, from outside the ‘religious’ sphere, congregations that are near enough to the outer edges of the ‘religious’ sphere to be (to a significant degree) ‘with the world face to face’. Criteria include affirmation of women’s place/status as equal with men, a capacity to recognize/encourage the spiritual integrity of non-Christian and ‘non-religious’ individuals, and being centered by a resolve to live day to day for the promotion of justice, peace, mercy (and, therefore, aligned with and attempting to be genuinely present with the disadvantaged/vulnerable).
   
   
4. My primary goal is for our children to approach ‘religion’ cautiously and to participate as ‘guests’ in congregations on the outer edges of the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #78

[April 1999 journal entry]

‘Religion’ does not press or expect the adherent to be radically (i.e., to the root) vulnerable to harsh/tragic human experiences, to be authentically and indiscriminately ‘with the world face to face’. The result is somewhat analogous to what I found when I began working as a project coordinator and evaluator for a University of Miami School of Medicine intervention project for cocaine-abusing women who were delivering cocaine-exposed babies – i.e., the case managers could do a checklist of tasks/assignments without being vulnerable to the women’s plight, without going to the dangerous section of Miami where the women lived in order to be face to face with the realities faced by the women and their children.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #77

[April 1999 journal entry]

Re Bonhoeffer’s 1939 decision to return to Germany, I think the following thoughts were pivotal for him as he made this decision –

1. that to be ‘Christian’ was to be ‘cultured’,
   
2. that to be ‘cultured’ was to stand face to face with one’s concrete situation,
   
3. that to be a ‘cultured Christian’ was for him to be in Germany.

Note that ‘Jesus’ did not escape danger and death by flight to Egypt or Rome.
Note that for Bonhoeffer to have sought safety would have discredited all he had said and would in safety have subsequently said. Question – would/should marriage and/or parenting alter such decisions?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #62

[May 1999 journal entry]

Is there a link between the tragic reality of social injustice (against which the ‘prophets’ in Jewish scripture spoke) and personal/individual suffering (which the author/narrator of the story/play Job interprets to be innocent and not just)? To be consistent, must the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute social injustice (e.g., slavery, economic oppression, discrimination, . . .) to ‘God’ in the same way individual/personal suffering is attributed immediately or indirectly to ‘God’? I think so.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #61

[May 1999 journal entry]

A physician acquaintance has in recent months used increasingly the terms ‘existentialist/ism’ when commenting on the rootlessness he sees in modern western societies. I am trying to explain to him that the central premise of existentialist thought is that there is one empirically demonstrable/indisputable ‘truth’ – i.e., that all human beings die and that, therefore, all decisions about how to live should be rooted in and driven by this ‘truth’. This point is made emphatically in Ecclesiastes. To the existentialist point of view (with which I agree), I would add a second empirically demonstrable ‘truth’ – i.e., that the breadth/depth of human suffering establishes the reality of in fact (not just in appearance) ‘innocent’ suffering. This point is made emphatically by the author/narrator of the story/play Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #60

[May 1999 journal entry]

A close friend recently summarized for me a group discussion at his home during which a sickly older lady said “I am not disappointed with God” in spite of her continued illnesses though all the ‘religious’ alternatives (e.g., prayers for healing, anointing, . . .) as well as medical efforts to relieve her condition have failed. I suggested to my friend that she is an example of how an individual can go through even protracted circumstances safely/fully within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. We went on to discuss (1) that not everyone has a family with which to live as this older lady does and (2) that the impact on her family has been sizeable (but remains unstated in conversations such as the group discussion). I further suggested to my friend that -- for me at least – the critical point/threshold was/is whether one isolates one’s self and diminishes/dismisses the circumstances of others or one becomes painfully/radically aware of the breadth/depth of human suffering and thereby becomes acutely/existentially conscious of human suffering to the point that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm fails.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #59

[April 1999 journal entry]

One conclusion to which a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of the story/play Job leads is that no credible/compelling view of ‘God’ is presented/developed in the story/play.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #58

[April 1999 journal entry]

There are at least three ways to read the story/play Job – i.e.,

1. focus on ‘God’, with the ‘tempter’ perspective and the human perspective as secondary considerations,
   
   
2. focus on the ‘tempter’, with the ‘God’ perspective and the human perspective as secondary considerations,
   
   
3. focus on Job and other human perspectives, with the ‘God’ perspective and the ‘tempter’ perspective as secondary considerations.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #30

[June 1999 journal entry]

In a recent ‘professional formation’ session with a medical student rotating with our Appalachia community health center for a month, I suggested that he think of and define ‘dedication’ in terms of living near/on the edge of cynicism and burnout in that to be dedicated is to fully, intentionally, and authentically invest one’s self to the point of vulnerability. In a subsequent discussion, I introduced the need for an ‘encompassing approach to spirituality’. He mentioned an internal medicine physician friend of his whom he described “deeply Pentecostal”. I asked the student if, within such a fundamentalist and single-factor theological thought world, medical intervention must be viewed as fighting/resisting ‘God’. In response, he referenced guidance he had received from a physician who sponsors a Christian Medical and Dental Society chapter (an organization decidedly toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum in the ‘religious’ sphere) – i.e., “Steer clear of such questions”. I suggested to the student that to do so compartmentalizes life and separates spirituality from professional life. I later asked the student -- after he said he does not think anything happens randomly -- how he integrates that view with the statistical reasoning so foundational for modern medicine. I noted that randomness is at the heart of statistics. He indicated he had not previously thought about this point.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #29

[May 1999 journal entry]

I sometimes feel/sense that the physicians with whom I work closely (who retain the resolve to be humane and to exercise a keen social conscience in the practice of medicine) and whose professional formation I support/promote are analogous to dinosaurs – i.e., creatures that became extinct because they were no longer compatible with the environment.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #25

[April 1999 journal entry]

‘Resurrection’ is not the anchoring cornerstone event around which the integrity of my life is built and stands/falls. ‘Resurrection’ is not the anchoring cornerstone event without which a life well lived is a meaningless goal.

1. This position differs with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm position expressed by the apostle Paul and other writers/ings in Christian scripture.
   
   
2. This position is consistent with the record of faithful lives of integrity lived by Jews (and others) before and concurrent with the development of the Christian teaching/doctrine re ‘resurrection’. (Note ‘resurrection’ is not a teaching in Jewish scripture.)
   
   
3. This position permits ‘resurrection’ to be a gift and an experience to be anticipated for whatever it may be, rather than a doctrine the acceptance or rejection of which divides/separates and rather than an experience that is expected as an ‘entitlement’.
   
   
4. This position proposes that ‘Jesus’ does not teach those around/following him that everything stands/falls on his resurrection. Instead, this position sees ‘Jesus’ as concentrating on the reality and credibility implicit in his willingness/determination to maintain his integrity even if he is rejected, persecuted, and/or killed.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #24

[March 1999 journal entry]

For a ‘non-religious’ image/interpretation of ‘Jesus’ –

1. a method is needed that distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies or Maccoby’s The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity),
   
   
2. the place of ‘religion’ in the time ‘Jesus’ lived must be delineated (e.g., birth place, family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies/habits, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the Temple, familiarity with Jewish scripture, . . .),
   
   
3. the ‘non-religious’ dimensions in the life of ‘Jesus’ must be delineated (e.g., inward presence of ‘God’, open-air settings in which to meet/teach, Sermon on the Mount themes, consideration of nature, confrontation with ‘religious’ leaders/institutions, the link between his values/vision and his /persecution/death, . . .).

Fragment -- #94

[May 1999 journal entry]

Note how pervasive statistical or ‘odds’ interpretation and decision-making are in our society. This trait forces a contradiction upon individuals whose ‘religious’ paradigm permits no consideration of randomness, chance, or luck.

Fragment -- #93

[April 1999 journal entry]
I recently read Terrence des Pres’ 1976 publication -- The Survivor: An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps. des Pres (d. 1987) was an English Literature professor at Colgate University (1973-87). Based on interviews with Holocaust survivors, The Survivor has become a classic interpretation of concentration camp existence. des Pres identified his subject in the first sentence –

“My subject is survival, the capacity of men and women to live beneath the pressure of protracted crisis, to sustain terrible damage in mind and body and yet to be there, sane, alive, still human” (p. v).

He described the Nazi death camps as ‘extremity’ experiences. I have not yet had such experiences fully and firsthand. I have been very near as a spouse, as a friend, as a prompter. I have been and continue to be near enough to have been changed personally/existentially and to serve as an interpreter. I am a volunteer of sorts. I feel a responsibility (1) to tell the victims’/survivors’ stories of maintaining integrity and remaining ‘human’ and (2) to encourage those professionals who choose to be near enough the victims/survivors to respect and to strengthen them. My thoughts while reading The Survivor included:

• The analogy of a soldier in a losing battle
  Possible writing project title – Equal to the Worst
  
  
• A survivor resolves to force those in authority/power to call a trial (a point unfortunately avoided by the author of the story/play Job in the whirlwind section, thus leaving it ambiguous whether or not the ‘scrapheap’ Job should be seen as a ‘survivor’).
  
  
• Note the subtle temptations to yield to those in authority/power and, therefore, to violate one’s integrity.
  
  
• Being with my first wife (d. 1987) as truly/authentically as possible through her battle with multiple sclerosis meant having my ‘conventionalities’/‘civilities’ taken away, resulting in clarification of what was/is ‘the simple truth’ or ‘the integrity’ or ‘the core humanity’ in my life.
  
  
• The question facing the ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Will I be a survivor?”
  
  
• There is considerable personal and social pressure to forget (or not to notice) the breadth/depth of human suffering. What are the implications for ‘memory’ and ‘remembering’?
  
  
• Job’s three close friends are most ‘human’ in their initial response from afar – i.e., feeling and expressing horror at Job’s situation/plight. Their initial response approaches being the friends Job so desperately needs (i.e., the 6:14 type friend). But then they quickly fail.
  
  
• My attempt to be truly/authentically with my first wife in her illness and death (1) eventually had nothing to do with being faithful to ‘God’ or to ‘Jesus’ (as such concepts/constructs died for me in their ‘religious’ meaning) or to a ‘religious’ tradition/denomination, but (2) centrally had to do with being genuinely present with the person to whom I had vowed to be present ‘for better or worse’ whatever the cost. To be genuinely present with her in her ‘extremity’ was unavoidably to be unfaithful to ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere.

Fragment -- #92

[April 1999 journal entry]
Thesis: Spirituality, ethics, and theology within the ‘religious’ T/O sphere – increasingly so toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum -- are anchored in a view of human beings as ‘weak’. Appeals to or consideration of human beings’ ‘strength’ are either accounted for in reference to special gifts or are seen negatively as indications of pride/self-righteousness. It seems to me that when relationships – with others or with ‘God’ – are anchored in ‘weakness’, there is a disincentive to diminish one’s ‘weakness’ because to do so diminishes the ‘religious’ experience. I would propose (1) to build on and aspire for ‘strength’ re spirituality, ethics, theology and (2) to deal with ‘weakness’ in light of and in relation to ‘strength’.

Fragment -- #91

[April 1999 journal entry]

Thesis: ‘Ethics’ should be approached so as to reflect the decision-maker’s being present and interwoven with those involved with/affected by his/her thoughts/actions. Therefore, ‘ethics’ should be approached so as to recognize the need to maximize one’s capacity to tolerate moral ‘dissonance’ in order to be truly present with those involved with and affected by his/her thoughts/actions. ‘Ethics’ toward the evangelical-to-fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum within the ‘religious’ sphere calls for decisions that avoid moral ‘dissonance’. Such an approach to ‘ethics’ minimizes the ability to be truly present with those involved with and affected by one’s thoughts/actions.

Fragment -- #90

[April 1999 journal entry]

What influence do choices about career paths have on experiencing life-changing pressure from face-to-face experience with harsh/tragic human suffering? Are the following career paths likely to result in such pressure?

• A pastor – not common and not essential to the position.
  
• A university faculty member – rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A social worker – more likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• In business – rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A lawyer -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A physician – very possible (depending on the specialty) but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A nurse – very likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A public school teacher – possibly but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• An architect -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A scientist -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• An engineer -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• In law enforcement – likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A politician -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A . . . .

Fragment -- #89

[April 1999 journal entry]
Two insights I have gained by living in an economically depressed rural East TN/KY Appalachia setting.

1. Professionals who choose to live/work in such settings face a critical and complicated parenting issue re their children’s education. We have felt this concern/problem, even though the public schools available to our kids in our town are noticeably better than options anywhere else in the area. My conclusion is that it is justifiable for professionals to take options that make available to their children the quality of education necessary for them to be able to follow their parent’s professional choices.
   
   
2. The poor can be distinguished into two groups – those whose situation/plight is essentially linked to their being exploited and those for whom poverty has become a ‘culture’. Re the former, they and their situation change if/when exploitation is diminished/eliminated. Re the latter, they do not and their situation does not change if/when exploitation is diminished/removed. Note that, for the latter, the powerful exploiters see/find nothing much now in the area to exploit. They either accept carrying/subsidizing them or look for ways to eliminate responsibility for them. Note that discussion in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture re (in)justice has to do only with the first group.

Fragment -- #88

[March 1999 journal entry]

Re a ‘non-religious’ reading/interpretation of Christian scripture, I see the apostle Paul as ultimately/very ‘religious’ in that

1. he built on his received ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, experience, and history,
   
2. his methodology was not in any way historical or scientific,
   
3. he did not seriously consider ‘innocent’ suffering (other than ‘religious’ persecution),
   
4. he argued for ‘proportionality’ (i.e., things balance out in an after-life if not in this life),
   
5. he separated ‘wisdom’ from indiscriminate ‘face to face’ consideration of human experience,
6. he expected an imminent end of the world,
7. he had no place for doubt,
8. . . . .