[September 2004 journal entry]
My experience as the spouse of a multiple sclerosis victim put me in a position analogous to Job’s wife as I have studied closely the story/play Job since the early-1970s. My affluence (in the etymological sense of ‘flowing to’) – e.g., privileges and resources associated with being male, white-skinned, American, healthy, athletic, intelligent, with having opportunities to travel abroad, with never being uncertain about employment or my next meal, with . . . – has put me in a position analogous to the Ecclesiastes author’s deep existential turmoil once he had seen how exceptional his privileged life was when compared with what he saw of the severe want and suffering the vast majority of individuals were experiencing just beyond the edge (and perhaps due to) his affluence. When I began (1979) teaching graduate courses in history and theology, my lived connections with the characters in the drama around the ‘scrapheap’ Job and with the Ecclesiastes author (1) led to my introducing a human suffering course that was framed by and tied to a ‘scrapheap’ Job perspective and (2) led to the attempt to construct an imagined dialogue between the Ecclesiastes author and ‘Jesus’ as the format, essence, challenge of my systematic theology course (with whom in Jewish scripture or Christian scripture could the Ecclesiastes author have a dialogue?). The ideas tested in those two courses contributed directly and significantly to my loss of confidence that the ‘religious’ sphere can either produce the missing character in the story/play Job (i.e., a character representing a way to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him further) or sustain a dialogue with the Ecclesiastes author that takes seriously and embraces his scrutiny of the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery in ‘life under the sun’ (with the last paragraph in the Ecclesiastes text – which I view as tacked on by a ‘religious’ editor -- illustrating the ‘religious’ withdrawal from the dialogue on methodological grounds). My intent to seek a way of being that is a variation on the missing character in the story/play Job and my intent to test the credibility/integrity of ideas from the perspective of and against the reality of the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery in ‘life under the sun’ meant I had passed the point of considering further or seeking to return to the ‘religious’ sphere as my spiritual and ethical ‘home’. By the 1991 resignation from the institution where I had been on faculty, my move outside the ‘religious’ sphere in order to be(come) ‘with the world face to face’ was complete. I did not seek another place (‘home’) within the ‘religious’ sphere. Instead, opportunities to live/work within the medical education and practice settings created ways for me to relocate where the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery is seen ‘face to face’ and where there is no more crucial ethical challenge than to be near suffering patients without harming them further.
