[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.
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.
