A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #251

[October 2000 journal entry]
I find myself to be too thoroughly a ‘from below’ respondent to events/experiences to attribute confounding events/experiences to a ‘from above’ explanation. To do so would be a variation on the ‘God of the gaps’ about which Bonhoeffer wrote in his prison letters.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #250

[October 2000 journal entry]
Newton’s methodological proposal, as I understand it, was to consider natural explanations for events before appealing to supernatural explanations. I do not recall that Newton put his proposal in terms of paradigms or worldviews. The significance of doing so has to do with assumptions about those events that are not sufficiently accounted for by the initial step one takes in trying to explain any event. A person using a pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm expects events to be explained ‘from above’, with the assumption that confounding events could be so explained but are at present beyond human understanding (e.g., “God works in a mysterious way” or “We’ll understand it all by and by”). The reverse, it seems to me, is also the case. A modern/scientific paradigm forms around a sufficient and growing number of ‘from below’ explanations of events. Confidence in this paradigm leads one to assume that confounding events will in the future be explained ‘from below’. I am not sure Newton realized (or dared to acknowledge, if he realized) that his proposal called for, in addition to a methodological shift, also and more profoundly a paradigm shift.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #249

[October 2000 journal entry]
I see Bonhoeffer in the prison letters pressing for intellectual consistency. I do too. However, in his day as well as today, a (disturbingly, to me) large number of individuals – certainly in the United States, but perhaps to a lesser degree in England/Western Europe – seem content to shift back and forth between two mutually exclusive worldviews – i.e., modern and pre-modern. I think of this inconsistency when I read in the prison letters Bonhoeffer’s objections to ‘compartmentalization’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #248

[October 2000 journal entry]

In prison Bonhoeffer was reading quite a lot in physics literature (his older brother, Karl-Friedrich, being a leading figure in the physics field in Germany). Note also Ralf Wustenberg’s recent study of the literature Bonhoeffer was reading in prison (A Theology of Life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity). His “God of the gaps” and “before God as if without God” comments in his prison letters should be read in light of this reading. Bonhoeffer may well have had in mind relativity and randomness as well as a traditional ‘laws of nature’ perspective. At least one limitation should be noted re Bonhoeffer – i.e., he had most immediately in mind Germany and western societies. Today’s global connectedness (with most only minimally introduced to the thinking that underlies modernization) is post-Bonhoeffer.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #247

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer asked in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- “How do we speak of God -- without religion, i.e., without . . . .”? I think he was looking intently across the threshold into ‘non-religious’ territory. Before answering him, I would ask how he is nuancing the word ‘God’ in the question. I face at least two other questions re attempting to “speak of God” – an ‘if’ question and a ‘should we’ question -- before getting Bonhoeffer’s ‘how’ question. My variation on a ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ approach leads me to respond to Bonhoeffer’s question with four proposals -- (1) to speak of ‘God’ in a ‘religious’ way is no longer an option (for me, at least), (2) silence is more essential and central to experiencing ‘God’ than is any attempt to speak of ‘God’, (3) the reality to which the word ‘God’ points transcends all efforts to speak of ‘God’ (a Berdyaev-type point re anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic language), and (4) attempts to speak of ‘God’ are most insightful and least vulnerable to idolatrous language when addressing who/what ‘God’ is not.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #246

[October 2000 journal entry]
I waded through most of Barth’s Church Dogmatics and other publications first during my doctoral studies and then through each year’s preparation for the current religious thinking graduate course I taught 1979-92. Barth was very critical of the ‘religious a priori’ considered in liberal thought from Schleiermacher forward to be antecedent to Christian faith/experience. He separated himself unequivocally from the ‘religious a priori’ variations found in Tillich et al and Kierkegaard et al. Barth knew he could not simply deny the results of critical scholarship (thus the error in associating him too closely with evangelical/fundamentalist thought in the United States). By proposing a ‘divine in-break’ prior to human response or theological reflection (the more traditional Reformed side of Barth), he found room to acknowledge but then marginalize the results of critical scholarship (much to the disappointment and frustration of Harnack). Barth played a central/leading role in the formation and development of the Pastors’ Emergency League in the early-1930s (from which came the Confessing Church). The urgently needed opposition to the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ (a frightening form of a ‘religious a priori’) weighed heavy on his mind. I would say that Barth proposed/attempted a ‘revelation a priori’ (i.e., Bonhoeffer’s charge that Barth erred in opting for “a positivism of revelation”). I think Bonhoeffer was objecting to Barth’s variation on a ‘from above’ methodology and perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #245

[October 2000 journal entry]
A ‘religious a priori’ is assumed within the ‘religious’ sphere both (1) in traditional, orthodox, pre-modern circles and (2) in liberal/modern circles (e.g., from Schleiermacher’s On Religion to Fosdick’s The Meaning of Prayer and beyond). Traditional, orthodox, pre-modern thought regards this ‘religious a priori’ to have been seriously diminished (according to some, fully destroyed) by/since a literal space-time ‘Fall’, with subsequent recovery coming only through a special/individual redemptive act of ‘God’. Liberal/modern thought is more optimistic about the spiritual potential/capacity of human beings.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #244

[October 2000 journal entry]
In place of a ‘religious a priori’, I would propose a ‘Geist a priori’. Several years ago, I turned to the German term Geist as a way around the front-loaded baggage that weighs down the term ‘spiritual’. Can we account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ (in the sense of exhausting natural explanations for human experience/s) without a remainder, without sensing there is something ‘more’ to being human? Note that attempting to account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ is itself an exercise of this ‘more’ and demonstrates there is something ‘more’ to being human. I have found very few who say “there is no remainder, nothing more” to being human and then live consistently with the consequences of this judgment. A ‘Geist a priori’ opens for serious consideration, but does not mandate, looking beyond the human ‘Geist’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #243

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer elsewhere in the prison correspondence used the phrase “unconscious Christians” to account for individuals who by their integrity demonstrate that the idea of a ‘religious a priori’ is no longer tenable. I am not drawn to his use of ‘unconscious Christian’. Some of the individuals with whom I am acquainted who Bonhoeffer would have considered ‘unconscious Christians’ are very consciously not Christian, at least as the term is variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere. Also, Bonhoeffer’s use of ‘Christian’ in the 30 April 1944 letter strikes me as still very ‘religious’ in nuance. To become ‘non-religious’ is to risk losing a claim on the term Christian as variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #242

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer, correctly I think, saw in the modern/scientific remaking of Germany and other western societies a serious/significant challenge to the longstanding ‘religious a priori’ for interpreting being human and interpreting human experience. Are humans essentially ‘religious’ -- i.e., ‘God’ conscious and ‘God’ oriented? I hear Bonhoeffer calling attention to evidence that human beings can live very stable, centered, ‘cultured’ lives without reference to ‘God’ and without ‘religion’. His most immediate examples were among his family members and his fellow conspirators. In the 30 April 1944 letter, he questioned the presupposed ‘religious a priori’ and offered his answer in terms of the “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”. I would go further and argue that a ‘religious a priori’ is assumed in Jewish scripture, in Christian scripture, and -- most importantly -- by ‘Jesus’. This conclusion necessitates – for a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics -- a radical (i.e., to the root) and critical rethinking of those sources as well as the subsequent history of Christian thought.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #241

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference in his 30 April 1944 prison letter to a “religious a priori” as the underpinning for “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”, his ‘God of the gaps’ criticism of ‘religion’ should be recalled. Until well into the 19th century, so little could be explained ‘from below’ that a ‘from above’ worldview could easily be taken for granted throughout Germany and other western societies in which modern/scientific foundations were still being laid. In other words, the image of ‘gaps’ itself implies a shift from a ‘from above’ perspective to a ‘from below’ perspective due to scientific breakthroughs already achieved and those anticipated with increasing confidence.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #240

[October 2000 journal entry]
In the 30 April 1944 letter, Bonhoeffer calls attention to the inconsistency of those “who honestly describe themselves as religious”. I would go further and say it is not possible to be consistently ‘religious’ and participate fully in a modern, scientifically shaped/informed society. I would also go further and note, with considerable dismay, that most “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem not to be existentially disturbed by living lives that contradict their ‘religious’ language. But then, I remind myself that the resolve to center on the ‘outer line’ and to be fully engaged in the present situation is a ‘non-religious’ resolve, not a ‘religious’ resolve. Those “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem – to use Bonhoeffer’s terms -- content with ‘partiality’ or with ‘compartmentalizing God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #239

[October 2000 journal entry]
I do not think Bonhoeffer – in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- was jettisoning everything that could be called ‘inward’ or ‘conscience’. However, just as ‘religion’ is a burdened term (to the point that I have long since stopped using the term), so also are the terms inward and conscience. In my variation on a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics, inward has to do with the reflective side of an ‘action-reflection’ rhythm for living. I am drawn to the Quaker idea of simultaneity -- i.e., maturing to the point of experiencing the temporal and the eternal at the same time. Conscience is very important, but should not be the single or final determinant of ethical decision-making. Much is done in good conscience that falls far short of a unifying, altruistic, and self-sacrificing way of life that accentuates respect for ‘the least of these’. To use Bonhoeffer’s phrase, the ‘outer line’ experience should set the agenda for individual and corporate introspection. On what are Bonhoeffer’s 30 April 1944 thoughts about spirituality and ethics based? I do not expect to decipher a very finished answer from the prison letters. I think Bonhoeffer was still in a very early stage of tracing out – beyond the threshold of the ‘religious’ sphere -- the implications of a ‘non-religious’ approach. For me, the basis is an interweaving of perspectives illustrated (1) by Koholeth’s inability to separate his thought from those in tragically desperate circumstances and (2) by Job’s wife who is disturbingly presented in the story as ambivalent at best re maintaining respect for Job. I am convinced that all ‘religious’ bases for spirituality and ethics melt down or die when pressed scientifically and existentially ‘from below’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #238

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference to “the time of inwardness and conscience” (30 April 1944 prison letter) -- I tend to think of inwardness and conscience separately. What Bonhoeffer may have had in mind re inwardness is the clearer of the two to me. I think he was objecting to a turn inward and, therefore, away from one’s present situation. Such inwardness implies a compartmentalizing that is not tolerated by a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. For Bonhoeffer, ‘God’ is to be experienced in the concrete realities we face, ahead of us in a sense, pursuing reconciliation -- however hard to detect that presence may be. Bonhoeffer sensed a cowardliness in the turn inward that was piously adopted by so many in Germany -- including the Confessing Church -- by/after 1937. Also inwardness offers another example of trying to find gaps where ‘God’ might still be found/relevant in the modern world. I am not so sure what to hear in his reference to conscience. I need to look more closely for clues in his prison letters and in his Ethics. My primary focus to date has been on his discussion of conscience in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay. My guess at this point would be that the Hitler era had forced decisions with no ‘clear conscience’ options for those who remained focused on and resistant to that horrific situation. Also, he may have heard/known many who claimed a ‘clear conscience’ in their dismissal of or support for Hitler.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #237

[September 2000 journal entry]
I do think the ‘religionless’ idea/concept is time bound as a serious alternative for individuals and societies. Until the various social experiments from the 17th century forward with reorganizing politically, economically, educationally, and ethically ‘from below’ (i.e., the underpinnings being evident in democracies and in scientific inquiry/decision-making) -- the official and majority perspectives from antiquity to the late 18th century were variations on a ‘from above’ (i.e., ‘religious’) a priori. Here lies the radical and revolutionizing significance of the secularization that eventually marginalized ‘from above’ institutions (e.g., monarchy, nobility, religion/church, . . .). I do not think secularization necessarily results in a spiritually empty secularism, naturalism, materialism or a spirituality that is cutoff from ‘Jesus’. However, without considerable care and substantial existential courage/risk, superficial approaches to ‘religionless’ spirituality tend to sprout pretty quickly/easily.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #236

[September 2000 journal entry]
I have only recently noticed Bonhoeffer’s references to time in his 30 April 1944 prison letter. There may be a clue here re his evolving thought about ‘religion’ -- i.e., that he associated ‘religion’ with a period in the history, with ‘religion’ phasing into the narrative around Constantine’s rise and phasing out of the narrative past the early 18th century. As I have wrestled with what the word/phenomenon ‘religion’ means to/for me, the nuances for ‘religion’ I have in mind appear throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as throughout Christian history. In other words, I do not see ‘religion’ to be time bound or period specific (as did Bonhoeffer, at least at this early point in his thinking about ‘religion/less’).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #235

[September 2000 journal entry]
I think Bonhoeffer’s reference to ‘Christ’ in his 30 April 1944 prison letter is still very ‘religious’ (somewhat parallel to the ‘scrapheap’ Job continuing to use the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #234

[September 2000 journal entry]
In his 30 April 1944 prison letter, what/who did Bonhoeffer include (or exclude) re ‘Christianity’? As a historian and with my variation on a ‘religionless’ approach, I would give a ‘from below’ answer and begin with a historical/social definition of ‘religion’. Bonhoeffer, from his doctoral studies forward, took seriously a sociology of religion explanation of Christianity. Remember Max Weber was a neighbor and family friend. With the Confessing Church as his central case in point, Bonhoeffer kept expecting through the 1930s to find a remainder in expressions of ‘Christianity’ for which sociologists of religion could not account. In the 30 April 1944 letter, I suspect he had both these perspectives in mind, with his thought about ‘religion’ correlating with a sociologist of religion perspective and his thought about ‘religionless’ correlating with his search for the remainder.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #233

[September 2000 journal entry]
It seems to me that faith as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere is unequivocally separated from doubt, thus imposing severe constraints/limitations on thinking/inquiry. Faith -- understood as that which is trusted -- in a ‘religionless’ sense (at least for me) entails integrating, protecting, embracing an essential place for doubt.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #232

[July 2006 journal entry]
The only time or place where conversations ever ring unambiguously true to me is a time or place that is separate from the language, the liturgy, and the theology taken for granted within every ‘religious’ community with which I am familiar.

Fragment -- #320

[October 2000 journal entry]
In addition to contributing to the demonstration of certain ‘laws of nature’, Newton also addressed the implications for acknowledging such ‘laws’ when he proposed that natural (i.e., ‘from below’) explanations for events/experiences should first be considered and, if adequate, adopted without appeal to supernatural interpretations. This method reverses pre-modern/pre-scientific ‘religious’ methods. Not surprisingly, Newton struggled with the theological orthodoxy of his day (e.g., the ‘Trinity’ doctrine) and faced charges of heresy. In Newton’s time (late 17th century) and for some time thereafter, insight into ‘laws of nature’ did not yet account for many or most events/experiences. A ‘from below’ method for interpreting events/experiences did not for some time filter into public/common reasoning sufficiently for the pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm to be seriously challenged or to give way.

Fragment -- #319

[October 2000 journal entry]
It is my understanding that in antiquity (i.e., prior to the formation of a modern/scientific paradigm) the term ‘miracle’ was used in reference to events/experiences that were surprising or marvelous manifestations of the assumed work of ‘God’ (or ‘Gods’ or celestial powers or . . .) in managing/sustaining nature. Several words would have been available in antiquity to refer to such marvels. What was not available or considered, other than for an exceptional few, was something akin to the Newton-forward ‘laws of nature’ perspective which a ‘miracle’ would violate/suspend.

Fragment -- #318

[October 2000 journal entry]
I was asked recently, “Are most humans intellectually lazy?” Generally speaking, I am convinced the answer must be “yes” -- in and out of the ‘religious’ sphere. The phrase ‘intellectually lazy’ invites a spectrum to sort out the traits of this laziness. I do think one of the subtleties of societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) is the invitation/permission to be intellectually lazy. I think the author of Ecclesiastes and the narrator of Job in different ways challenge the false sense of security and the intellectual laziness characteristic of ‘religious a priori’ thinking.

Fragment -- #317

[November 2006 journal entry]

I am enthused and relieved by the mid-term election results. Bush et al have – without any appearance of awareness or accountability – tragically driven our society into the proverbial ditch. The Democratic majorities’ highest priority should/must be to take sufficiently radical (i.e., to the root) measures re the corrupt/ing DC milieu to restore the minimal degree of respect/trust within the voting public necessary for Congress to function. Only then will there be a chance to recover integrity at the national/international levels.